Triablogue

Haunted Cosmos' Episode On The Enfield Poltergeist

2026-05-24T07:31:55.941-04:00

They recently covered Enfield. It's easy to get some things wrong about a case that's so large and complicated. I typically don't criticize people if they're only wrong about a small amount. But there's enough wrong with what Haunted Cosmos has done to warrant a response.

I haven't listened to many of their other episodes, probably some single-digit number. Maybe I'm not aware of some aspects of what the podcast is supposed to be, its background assumptions, what they've said in previous episodes about how they operate, and so on. As I said above, it's easy to get some things wrong in a context as large and complicated as Enfield. And you have to allow for some degree of fictionalizing in contexts like reenactments, leaving out some details when summarizing events, etc. But there's only so much you can get wrong. And if you're fictionalizing in some way, there has to be a reasonable means by which the audience can discern it. People expect some fictionalizing when doing reenactments in a documentary, for example, such as actors approximating somebody's facial expressions or tone of voice. But that doesn't mean you can go on to fictionalize when the narrator is speaking and the audience would typically expect material of a non-fictional nature. And getting a few facts wrong that are easy to get wrong over a two-hour documentary isn't the same as getting dozens of facts wrong, including ones that are hard to miss, in a half-hour program. If the differences between how Haunted Cosmos presented Enfield and what actually happened during the case are due to some fictional genre I'm not aware of, if they intended to present the case in a highly fictionalized way, I doubt that they're adequately communicating those intentions to their audience. From what I've seen of their other episodes, what I've read on their web sites, the comments I've seen other people make about the podcast, and so forth, I get the impression that people are expecting the podcast to be more non-fictional.

I sent Haunted Cosmos an email last Tuesday, asking what sources they used for their Enfield episode. I haven't gotten a response.

To give you some idea of what I'm objecting to, click here to watch a segment consisting of the following:

The concentrated activity toward Janet gave Grosse the idea of putting his recording equipment in her room. What he captured there remains the stuff of visceral horror for all who hear of it.

You see, since Peggy heard the disembodied voice nearer to the start of the haunting, and since the kids heard the voice a little bit as well, no other speech had been heard from the entity, but that was about to change in a big way. On September 22nd, 1977, it was 2:45 A.M. Grosse's tape recorder flickered with a faint red light in the corner of the girl's room, betraying that it was recording. Janet woke and opened her eyes to quiet darkness. A nauseating pain beset her stomach. Tired and hardly lucid still, she started to moan and twist around in her bed to get a little bit comfortable, but nothing worked. Janet steadily became more and more aware of her situation, and the moaning grew louder. Her breathing was heavier. Her movements were more and more desperate, turning here and there without a moment's rest in between. The moaning turned into a choking cough. And it was at this point that Grosse, seated downstairs and asleep, was woken by the speaker right next to him. The speaker was, of course, attached to the mic in Janet's room. He was now listening to the girl struggle. It was as though Janet was dry heaving, but the noise was more grinding like stone on stone. It was both human and not simultaneously. Suddenly, there was silence. Grosse leaned in. The quiet, he could tell through the radio, was not a calm one. All at once, there came a voice so deep and guttural and strained. "This is my house."

Grosse jumped out of his seat and ran up the stairs. He flung open Janet's door, turned on the light, and cradled the girl. She was half conscious and waking from a stupor. Her eyes, when they finally opened, spun around the room before finally settling with wide fear on Grosse. He whispered her name until she finally calmed down and descended right back into a deep sleep. She had no memory of the voice after this ordeal.

Grosse connected the dots. The moaning and the coughing that had been in her voice, the jerky stirring in her bed, the silence, then the intruder speaking. Janet Hodgson had suffered the possession of the poltergeist.

I've done a lot of research on the Enfield case. The events Haunted Cosmos describes above aren't on any of Grosse's tapes or Guy Playfair's. I've never seen the events described in any credible book or article, mentioned by anybody involved in the original events, etc. As far as I can tell, and according to what every relevant witness I've heard from has said, the embodied poltergeist voice originated on December 10 of 1977, with no mention of a manifestation like the one Haunted Cosmos is attributing to September 22 of that year. I mentioned credible books above. There's one that's not credible that makes claims similar to the ones made by Haunted Cosmos, and I'll discuss that book later. But even that book doesn't include some of the details that are in the podcast.

There are a few other parts of the program that give similarly detailed accounts of events that, as far as I can tell, never happened. Even the parts of the episode that are largely factual have dozens of errors mixed in with what's reported accurately: wrong dates, witnesses in the wrong places, etc. Go here for a reference to how only Peggy Hodgson and Carolyn Heeps were in the house when Heeps saw a chair move on its own. (Other people were present as well, and that fact has been widely reported for decades.) Or here for Peggy Hodgson calling the Daily Mirror on September 7 of 1977. (Peggy Nottingham called them on September 4.) There's then a highly inaccurate account of what happened when Douglas Bence and Graham Morris of the Daily Mirror visited the house for the first time. Or click here for a reference to "two thousand hours of audio". (If he's referring to the number of hours extant on Grosse and Playfair's tapes, which is what people typically refer to, the actual number is in the low hundreds. If he has some other kind of audio in mind, it's something I haven't heard of before, and it seems highly suspicious.) And so on.

There's been an unusual number of new books on Enfield in recent years, as you can see if you run some searches on Amazon and Google Books. Melvyn Willin's is good, but at least some of the others aren't. (I haven't read all of them, but most of the ones I've seen are or seem to be self-published, have gotten no or poor Amazon reviews so far, came out around the same time, etc. Among the ones I've read in part or in whole, there's a lot of suspicious content. Two or more of these books could easily be from the same author under different names.) See my review of Lee Brickley's book here.

It looks to me like a large percentage of what Haunted Cosmos discussed in their recent podcast is found in Gavin Wagstaff's The Enfield Poltergeist (Seattle, Washington: Amazon Digital Services LLC, 2025). It's a self-published book that describes itself as a "True Story" on the cover and in its subtitle. That description, like the rest of the book, is unreliable. Like Brickley, Wagstaff has published many other books on paranormal issues in rapid succession. And his Enfield book, like Brickley's, is short and uses various means of wasting space even in that short length (large print, large spaces between lines, many one-sentence paragraphs, etc.). At least in the Kindle edition I have, Wagstaff doesn't give us any significant information about his background, and he provides no documentation for any of his claims. Given how inaccurate, suspicious, and unsubstantiated the book is, it seems that either he or one or more of his sources is a liar, mentally ill, or some such thing. Many of the problems with the Haunted Cosmos podcast can be traced to Wagstaff's book, but I can't trace all of them to it. (For example, I don't recall seeing Wagstaff make Haunted Cosmos' claim that only Peggy Hodgson and Carolyn Heeps were in the house when Heeps saw a chair move. Maybe somebody misremembered what he read in Wagstaff's book, maybe the claim came from some other source, or whatever. Another example is found on page 12 of the Kindle version of Wagstaff's book. He ends his account of Peggy Hodgson hearing heavy breathing outside her bedroom door without saying anything about her opening the door. But Haunted Cosmos continues beyond that point and claims that the door was opened. Where did they get that information?) I suspect Haunted Cosmos used Wagstaff. But maybe they used some source closely associated with him instead (one of Wagstaff's sources, a source who drew material from Wagstaff, etc.). If they used Wagstaff's book, they could and should have noticed a lot of problems with it, like the ones mentioned above. Much of what Haunted Cosmos got wrong could easily have been corrected if they'd consulted more and better sources.

I don't know how much their treatment of Enfield is representative of their coverage of other paranormal issues.

The Importance Of Galatians 3:2

2026-05-21T06:09:15.362-04:00

It's a highly significant passage in the context of justification. It's often neglected, though. I recommend committing the passage reference (Galatians 3:2) and at least a portion of its text to memory.

The verse begins with a reference to "the only thing" Paul wants to know, which reflects the verse's significance in the context of Galatians and, therefore, in the context of justification. And he goes on to refer to "hearing with faith", an important phrase that expresses two vital components of the gospel: the context in which justification occurs (hearing) and the means by which it's received (faith, not faith combined with baptism or faith combined with anything else). For a further discussion of the verse and its surrounding context (including the false claim that verse 27 supports baptismal regeneration), see here.

The First Commandment, The Beginning Of Wisdom

2026-05-19T12:02:51.420-04:00

Above all other relationships and priorities:

"So take diligent heed to yourselves to love the Lord your God." (Joshua 23:11)

"What do people value in life?...From analyzing people’s answers, it is clear that one source of meaning is predominant: family. In 14 of the 17 advanced economies surveyed, more mention their family as a source of meaning in their lives than any other factor….Outside of the U.S., religion is never one of the top 10 sources of meaning cited – and no more than 5% of any non-American public mention it. In the U.S., however, 15% mention religion or God as a source of meaning, making it the fifth most mentioned topic….Evangelical Protestants in the U.S. are much more likely than mainline Protestants to mention faith as a source of meaning – 34% vs. 13%, respectively." (Pew Research Center)

"He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." (Matthew 10:37)

"We love, because he first loved us." (1 John 4:19)

Creating A Ghost

2026-05-17T06:58:42.456-04:00

In a post last week, I mentioned the possibility that an apparition of the dead involves a place memory or an appearance of a deceased human rather than a demon. I want to discuss another explanatory option.

Several years ago, I wrote about an experiment that was conducted in the 1970s, in which a group of people came up with an imaginary figure they tried to paranormally conjure. And they seemed to get some paranormal results, including some caught on video. It's been referred to as the Philip Experiment. To find out more about it, read the post linked above and this article. You could argue that the entity conjured in the experiment was a demon, a deceased human, or some kind of being we don't know about rather than a manifestation of the paranormal capacities of the group doing the conjuring. Maybe some kind of independent spirit - a demon, a deceased human, or whoever else - was acting as if he was the fictional Philip.

Whatever scenario you think is the most likely in that particular case, what I want to focus on here is the concept of paranormal phenomena from living humans being mistaken for something else. My earlier post discussed a caller to Greg Koukl's podcast who reported that his parents were interpreting some alleged paranormal events as manifestations of their deceased daughter. But what if one or both of the parents were producing the phenomena, which they then misinterpreted as coming from their daughter?

That kind of situation is worth considering not just because it has some significant plausibility in the abstract, but also because it seems to better explain some of the details of historical cases. Paranormal phenomena often seem trivial, fragmentary, nonsensical, or problematic in some other way that would be better explained as manifestations of the subconscious of a living human, for example, rather than as something that comes from a source like a demon or a deceased human. It may seem unlikely that a demon or ghost would want to keep levitating a particular object or would only be manifesting a portion of a body when it's visible rather than manifesting an entire body, for example. It's sometimes suggested that perhaps ghosts have difficulty communicating and doing other things they want to do at times, that their abilities fluctuate depending on various factors involved, and so on. Those are possibilities that should be considered. But it's also possible that the apparent weaknesses in the phenomena come from the fact that the agent producing the phenomena is so weak and, at least at times, isn't even conscious or fully conscious of producing the phenomena. Given how much less living humans would generally know about the paranormal than deceased humans and demons would, how much less experience living humans have had in such contexts, and so on, living humans seem to in some ways offer a better explanation of the weaknesses of much of what we see in paranormal contexts.

Tony Cornell wrote what I'll be quoting below about one of the poltergeist cases he investigated. An exorcism was done on the house by a local vicar, and the phenomena temporarily stopped, but came back the next year. Another exorcism was done. That one only kept the phenomena away for a day. The vicar contacted Cornell, who then went to the house:

Mrs M. [the wife and mother of the household], in fact, was so nervous that ADC [Cornell] felt it incumbent upon him to attempt to dispel the phenomena. He explained that no-one has ever been seriously hurt by a poltergeist, and that often the people involved are themselves in some unknown way responsible for the happenings. He then promised to get rid of the poltergeist. He collected some mysterious-looking odds and ends from his car, and went into one of the bedrooms, saying 'Whatever happens while I am in there, no matter what you hear, you must not come in'. It was the bedroom in which the wallpaper incident had taken place. Neither Mr nor Mrs M. would go into it. ADC sat inside smoking a cigarette. After fifteen minutes he emerged, with his jacket off and his tie pulled down, and dramatically stated that it would not come back. All were impressed. Mrs M. went into the bedroom – for the first time in weeks – with ADC, and said that it felt quite different. A few days later the vicar wrote confirming that there had been no further trouble.

All remained quiet thereafter for about three months. But on 2 March 1968 Mr M. rang ADC, who was away for a few days, to say that 'it' had started up again. On 6 March he rang again, and contacted ADC, who arranged to pay another visit on 10 March. The day before the visit ADC received yet another phone call from Mr M., who said that they were going to leave the bungalow. 'You (ADC) said when you were here that you would take it away with you. You did not do so. Please come and take it away with you. Do not say it will not come back. Take it away with you.'...

ADC took a slightly tougher line during this visit, saying that he would not 'exorcize' the spook again, but would talk through the matter with Mr and Mrs M. to see if they were causing it unconsciously. He explained that some people try to relate the occurrence of poltergeist phenomena to the emotional state of some person or persons present at the scene of the happenings. He then discussed at length the possible emotional causes of the poltergeist activities that they, the M.s, were experiencing. Did they have serious rows? At first they both denied it. But eventually it came out that they did have rows, especially over Mrs M.s suspicions that Mr. M. might be seeing other women. Furthermore about seventy-five per cent of the poltergeist phenomena occurred during the period of silent hostility that such rows produced....

ADC left the bungalow about 10.30 p.m. [after further paranormal activity seems to have occurred], saying that he would take 'the thing' away with him. It has never returned.

(Alan Gauld and A.D. Cornell, Poltergeists [United States: White Crow Books, 2017], approximate Kindle locations 5160, 5196, 5218)

You can read the context surrounding Gauld and Cornell's comments above to find out more about the paranormal events reported in the case, the behavior of the witnesses involved, etc. It seems likely to have been a genuine case.

So, why would the phenomena seem to correspond with the psychology of the husband and wife and temporarily go away both in response to genuine exorcisms and in response to Cornell's fabricated exorcism and go away without coming back in response to Cornell's more psychological approach accompanied by the claim that he would take the poltergeist away? And what should we make of the potential psychological explanation of the poltergeist that Cornell proposed?

The common thread, behind all of the timing of the events, the exorcisms, and Cornell's more psychological approach, seems to be the psychology of the family experiencing the poltergeist. Their psychology could be affected by a genuine exorcism, a fake one, or a more psychological approach by somebody like Cornell. The best explanation for this case seems to be that there was no independent spirit involved, whether a demon, a deceased human, or whoever else. Rather, one or more members of the family created the poltergeist. I don't think that's the best explanation for every poltergeist, but it is for some. It's an explanatory option worth considering, among others.

Should we expect demonic and other paranormal activities today to be the same as they are in the Biblical record?

2026-05-14T05:55:55.866-04:00

No, since there are significant contextual differences. Not all historical contexts are the same. They involve different individuals, with different things at stake, etc. The Bible is Divine revelation that's meant to address some topics and not others and to address the topics it does cover to different degrees. Just as it doesn't tell us everything about astronomy or prayer, for example, it also doesn't tell us everything about the paranormal. There are reasons for the Bible to give a lot of attention to one thing and little or no attention to something else, even if the thing that gets little or no attention is more common, is more relevant to people in some contexts, etc. The fact that illness X was more common than illness Y in Biblical times, and therefore gets discussed more in scripture, doesn't change the fact that we should be giving much more attention, money, and other resources to Y if it's far more common than X in the modern world, does more harm than X, and so forth. Similarly, there's a different rate of literacy today than in Biblical times, so we expect more from people accordingly (e.g., how much we expect them to read scripture). Or when something like transgenderism becomes more popular at a certain point in history than it was at another point, we make adjustments to accommodate that. The same is true with paranormal matters. If near-death experiences are being discussed much more today than in past generations, including during the Biblical era, then we should make adjustments accordingly, living in the way appropriate to our context, not the Biblical one.

The activities of demons, like the demons Jesus came across during his public ministry and Satan's influence on Judas (Luke 22:3), are more likely to be discussed by scripture than something like out-of-body experiences or apparitions of the dead, even if those paranormal phenomena that get mentioned less happened more often, more people had firsthand experience with them, and so on. To return to my astronomy example above, it would be ridiculous to expect the Bible to say as much about astronomical issues as it does about demons, even though both are part of God's creation, there probably are more astronomical entities than there are demons, people tend to notice and think about astronomical objects more in their everyday life, and so on. You can't determine much from the Bible about, say, the frequency of comets, and we shouldn't expect the Bible to say much about it. It doesn't follow that we should have no interest in the frequency of comets, that no research should be done on the subject, that we can't have any significant level of knowledge of the subject because our knowledge is of such an extrabiblical nature, etc. Something like near-death experiences or precognitive dreams could happen many times over the centuries of history covered by the Bible, yet rarely or never get discussed by the Biblical authors. Still, we can and should have interest in such things, research them, and have a significant amount of knowledge about them.

The Bible sometimes tells us about something like Rachel's soul departing from her body (Genesis 35:18), Lazarus' soul in a transitional state (Luke 16:22), or ghosts (Luke 24:37-39), but often only briefly and in passing. Similarly, many aspects of science, music, food, and other areas of life aren't discussed much by the Bible. Yet, they get a lot of attention, money, and other resources.

Biblical research involves extrabiblical knowledge (information from extrabiblical documents relevant to how to interpret the Biblical languages, archeological artifacts, etc.). Demonology involves going into more depth about demons than scripture does, as do other fields of theology (thinking through the implications of the relevant Biblical passages, researching the historical backgrounds to those passages, thinking through how one passage may or probably does relate to another, etc.). It's true that modern paranormal research on matters like ghosts and telepathy goes beyond what scripture tells us. So does modern demonology.

It makes sense for the Bible to give a lot of attention to prominent religious figures like David, Jesus, and Paul. And demons had a lot of motivation to interact with such figures in ways that show up in the historical record. But you're not an equivalent of David, Jesus, or Paul. It's unlikely that there's some equivalent in your life of Judas and Satan's efforts to influence him (Luke 22:3), for example. You're probably not going to get the sort of demonic opposition somebody like Jesus, Peter, or Paul experienced. The discernible paranormal activity in your life could easily come far more from non-demonic sources than from demons. The demonic activity could still be more significant in some ways (more powerful, more evil, more dangerous, etc.). You should take what the Bible says about these issues into account, but you shouldn't expect your life to be equivalent to Jesus' or Paul's life in this context, nor should you expect the post-Biblical era to be identical to the Biblical era in every relevant context. Your life and life in the modern world in general will be less than what we see in the Bible in some ways, the same in some ways, and more in other ways. It's a mix. It's simplistic to say, "X percent of paranormal activity in the Bible is demonic. Therefore, X percent of paranormal activity in the modern world must be demonic."

There's also the issue of how much attention something has already gotten. An illness that only a small percentage of the population gets could warrant more attention than an illness a much bigger percentage of the population gets if the latter has already gotten a disproportionately large amount of attention. That sort of context matters. Evangelicals (and others) have been far too focused on demons in paranormal contexts.

Was Ignatius of Antioch Roman Catholic?

2026-05-12T03:15:00.001-04:00

He's been discussed a lot lately by various Catholics. See this recent video by Cameron Bertuzzi, for example. And Ignatius has often been cited in support of Catholicism and against Protestantism for many years. It's not just a recent development. It's been popular for a long time in Catholic circles to cite Ignatius as a major problem for Protestants, because of comments he makes about issues like the monarchical episcopate and how the eucharist is the flesh and blood of Christ.

But some Protestants believe in the monarchical episcopate and a bodily presence of Christ in the eucharist. And the sort of language Ignatius uses about the eucharist is also used by him in other contexts that aren't interpreted by anybody the way advocates of a bodily presence of Christ in the eucharist are interpreting his eucharistic comments. See my discussion here. And here are some other examples not discussed in that thread I just linked:

"Wherefore, clothing yourselves with meekness, be renewed in faith, that is the flesh of the Lord, and in love, that is the blood of Jesus Christ." (Letter To The Trallians 8)

"I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life." (Letter To The Romans 7)

Those passages have nothing to do with transubstantiation, consubstantiation, or anything of the sort. Faith, love, and eternal life aren't literally the flesh and blood of Christ. Ignatius frequently uses language that's highly metaphorical, poetic, and such, when he's discussing the eucharist and in other contexts.

He does have a lot of concern for church authority issues, and he advocates a monarchical episcopate. But that makes his never saying anything about apostolic succession or a papacy more significant accordingly. See here and here for some discussions of those aspects of his letters. Not only does he not mention either, but what he does say seems to go against apostolic succession as it's typically defined today and the papacy.

When he writes to the Roman church, he says much about the prominence of the Roman church for non-papal reasons (e.g., virtues like love and generosity), but he doesn't even mention the bishop of Rome, much less assign papal authority to him. (He does refer to other bishops.) Some of what he says in the process of writing to the Roman Christians makes more sense as anti-papal than as pro-papal or neutral. He opens the letter with a reference to how the Roman church "presides in the place of the region of the Romans" (preface), which makes the most sense as a reference to the church's regional rather than universal jurisdiction. Ignatius' other references to presiding specify the scope of the presiding nearby (the reference to presiding "over love" later in the preface of the same letter; Letter To The Magnesians 6). Elsewhere in the letter, he mentions Peter and Paul together as if they're equals, with no attempt to elevate Peter above Paul as a Pope (4). While a Roman Catholic could do that, it's significant as part of a cumulative case, as another example of a significant opportunity to refer to a papacy where he didn't do so. Furthermore, the pairing of Peter and Paul without any effort to refer to Peter as having had papal authority over Paul is found in other sources of the earliest generations as well. Those other sources don't seem to have believed in a papacy, and Ignatius likely didn't. He goes on, "Remember in your prayers the Church in Syria, which now has God for its shepherd, instead of me. Jesus Christ alone will oversee it, and your love will also regard it." (9) He has no concept of the bishop of Rome being his church's (the Syrian church's) bishop, but instead denies that his church now has any bishop other than God. He refers to the love of the Roman church toward the Syrians, but seems to have no concept of the papal authority of the Roman bishop. The comment about the Roman church's love seems to be an afterthought, after he'd denied that any bishop other than God is involved, and his afterthought about Rome was about its love, not its bishop. When he had an afterthought about what contribution his audience could make, he didn't think they were contributing any personal bishop to the situation. Rather, their contribution was love. Keep in mind that Roman Catholics keep trying to get us to take Ignatius' comments on other subjects in what they claim is the simplest sense (e.g., his comments on the eucharist). How, then, should we take his denial that his church, in his absence, has any bishop other than God? What does that imply for the Roman Catholic claim that the bishop of Rome has universal jurisdiction, is the bishop of bishops, etc.?

The concept of God being the bishop above the local bishop, with no mention of the bishop of Rome between the two, is likewise found in Ignatius' other letters:

"Now it becomes you also not to treat your bishop too familiarly on account of his youth, but to yield him all reverence, having respect to the power of God the Father, as I have known even holy presbyters do, not judging rashly, from the manifest youthful appearance of their bishop, but as being themselves prudent in God, submitting to him, or rather not to him, but to the Father of Jesus Christ, the bishop of us all....Since therefore I have, in the persons before mentioned, beheld the whole multitude of you in faith and love, I exhort you to study to do all things with a divine harmony, while your bishop presides in the place of God, and your presbyters in the place of the assembly of the apostles, along with your deacons, who are most dear to me, and are entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the beginning of time, and in the end was revealed....Study, therefore, to be established in the doctrines of the Lord and the apostles, that so all things, whatsoever you do, may prosper both in the flesh and spirit; in faith and love; in the Son, and in the Father, and in the Spirit; in the beginning and in the end; with your most admirable bishop, and the well-compacted spiritual crown of your presbytery, and the deacons who are according to God." (Letter To The Magnesians 3, 6, 13)

"And this will be the case with you if you are not puffed up, and continue in intimate union with Jesus Christ our God, and the bishop, and the enactments of the apostles. He that is within the altar is pure, but he that is without is not pure; that is, he who does anything apart from the bishop, and presbytery, and deacons, such a man is not pure in his conscience." (Letter To The Trallians 7)

"For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to show forth the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever you do, you may do it according to the will of God." (Letter To The Philadelphians 4)

"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to Polycarp, Bishop of the Church of the Smyrnaeans, or rather, who has, as his own bishop, God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ: wishes abundance of happiness." (Letter To Polycarp, preface)

Notice that, over and over and over again, he keeps going from God to the local bishop, then to the presbyters and deacons. The best explanation for why he likens the bishop of the local church to God while likening the presbyters to the apostles (Letter To The Magnesians 6) is that he thought the local bishop was the highest church office, meaning that there's no papacy. In contexts in which he seems to be referring to a hierarchy of authority, he has the local bishop, not the bishop of Rome, at the top. There are other places in his letters, not just the passage I just cited in his Letter To The Magnesians, in which he again likens the local bishop to God (Letter To The Ephesians 6, Letter To The Magnesians 11, Letter To The Trallians 2-3, Letter To The Smyrnaeans 8). And he addresses a lot of other authority issues (the Old Testament scriptures, the apostles, etc.). A papacy never gets mentioned. Arguments from silence range across a spectrum, from no significance to being of great value. For somebody as concerned about issues of church authority and church order as Ignatius was, who wrote so much about such subjects across so many contexts, to show no awareness of a papacy is significant. And he seems to contradict the concept of a papacy at times, in the ways I've discussed above, which goes beyond silence.

Sometimes Ignatius' highly positive comments about the Roman church (referring to its purity, etc.) will be cited, but none of those comments imply a papacy. And he makes similar comments about other sources. Consider some of his comments to the Ephesians. Imagine if these comments written to the church of Ephesus had been written to the Roman church instead:

"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which is at Ephesus, in Asia, deservedly most happy, being blessed in the greatness and fulness of God the Father, and predestinated before the beginning of time, that it should be always for an enduring and unchangeable glory...trusting through your prayers to be permitted to fight with beasts at Rome...As to my fellow-servant Burrhus, your deacon in regard to God and blessed in all things, I beg that he may continue longer, both for your honour and that of your bishop....May I always have joy of you, if indeed I be worthy of it. It is therefore befitting that you should in every way glorify Jesus Christ, who hath glorified you...I do not issue orders to you, as if I were some great person....For if I in this brief space of time, have enjoyed such fellowship with your bishop - I mean not of a mere human, but of a spiritual nature - how much more do I reckon you happy who are so joined to him as the Church is to Jesus Christ, and as Jesus Christ is to the Father, that so all things may agree in unity!...I am far inferior to you, and require to be sanctified by your Church of Ephesus, so renowned throughout the world....Ye, therefore, as well as all your fellow-travellers, are God-bearers, temple-bearers, Christ-bearers, bearers of holiness, adorned in all respects with the commandments of Jesus Christ, in whom also I exult that I have been thought worthy, by means of this Epistle, to converse and rejoice with you...may I arise through your prayers, of which I entreat I may always be a partaker, that I may be found in the lot of the Christians of Ephesus, who have always been of the same mind with the apostles through the power of Jesus Christ....Ye are the persons through whom those pass that are cut off for the sake of God...when ye assemble frequently in the same place, the powers of Satan are destroyed, and the destruction at which he aims is prevented by the unity of your faith." (preface, 1-3, 5, 8-9, 11-13)

Or his comments to the Smyrnaeans:

"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church of God the Father, and of the beloved Jesus Christ, which has through mercy obtained every kind of gift, which is filled with faith and love, and is deficient in no gift, most worthy of God, and adorned with holiness: the Church which is at Smyrna, in Asia, wishes abundance of happiness, through the immaculate Spirit and word of God. I glorify God, even Jesus Christ, who has given you such wisdom. For I have observed that you are perfected in an immoveable faith" (preface, 1)

If Ignatius had written those things to the Romans rather than the Ephesians and Smyrnaeans, we'd probably be hearing about how his comments allegedly are evidence of a papacy, infallibility, etc.

For a discussion of how problematic Ignatius' comments on justification are for Catholicism, go here. But in Cameron Bertuzzi's video I referred to earlier, Stephen Boyce argues that baptismal regeneration is found in the following passage in Ignatius:

"My love has been crucified, and there is no fire in me desiring to be fed; but there is within me a water that lives and speaks, saying to me inwardly, Come to the Father. I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life." (Letter To The Romans 7)

Stephen argued that Ignatius is referring to two sacraments, baptism and the eucharist. The reference to living water is about baptism, and the reference to bread and drink is about the eucharist. According to Stephen, Ignatius is drawing material from the gospel of John, the references to living water in John 4 and John 7 and Jesus' comments on the bread of life and his flesh and blood in John 6.

However, here are the two sentences just before and just after what's quoted above:

"For though I am alive while I write to you, yet I am eager to die....I no longer wish to live after the manner of men, and my desire shall be fulfilled if you consent." (Letter To The Romans 7-8)

He was asking the Roman Christians to not interfere with his upcoming death, to not attempt to prevent his martyrdom. What he seems to be desiring is that martyrdom, not an upcoming participation in the eucharist. He seems to be thinking of participating in the giving of his life, similar to Jesus' references to giving his flesh and blood at the cross in John 6. Elsewhere in the same letter Stephen is appealing to, Ignatius writes, "I am the wheat of God, and let me be ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of Christ." (4) The concept Ignatius has in mind has some similarity to the eucharist, but it's not the same.

The living waters passages in John 4 and John 7 don't make any reference to baptismal regeneration, and John 7:39 identifies the water as the Holy Spirit. In John 4, Jesus refers to a well of water that springs up (verse 14). That's not the sort of water in which baptisms occur. Baptismal water is outside us, not within us, and it isn't the type of water Jesus refers to (a well springing up). And he says that he could have given the woman he was talking to that living water already if she'd asked (4:10). But they weren't in the normal setting for baptism in the context of Jesus' public ministry, a setting allowing immersion, and there's no reference to any water having been drawn from the well yet. The living water is something already available (John 4:10). Yet, advocates of baptismal regeneration frequently claim that baptismal regeneration didn't go into effect until later. Some claim that it went into effect after the crucifixion, others claim that it went into effect after the resurrection, others allege that it went into effect at the time of the Great Commission, etc. Since nobody in the gospels is justified at the time of baptism, and the gospels keep referring to people being justified apart from baptism (e.g., the examples discussed here), advocates of baptismal regeneration frequently follow Tertullian's lead: "Grant that, in days gone by, there was salvation by means of bare faith, before the passion and resurrection of the Lord. But now that faith has been enlarged, and has become a faith which believes in His nativity, passion, and resurrection, there has been an amplification added to the sacrament, viz., the sealing act of baptism; the clothing, in some sense, of the faith which before was bare, and which cannot exist now without its proper law. For the law of baptizing has been imposed" (On Baptism 13). John 7 refers to a future coming of the Spirit, but also tells those present at the time to come to him (verse 37). The Spirit will be given to those who believe (verses 38-39), something referred to twice with no reference to baptism either time. The most sensible way to take the passage is that Jesus is calling people to come to him, whether before the anticipated coming of the Spirit or later, with the means of justification being faith, not faith combined with baptism. Baptism would be a part of their lives, but not the means of receiving the living water.

The evidence that Ignatius didn't believe in baptismal regeneration is far more numerous and weighty than the alleged affirmation of baptismal regeneration in his reference to living water. See my thread linked above for a discussion of that evidence.

Interacting With The Dead

2026-05-10T07:06:00.003-04:00

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 Saul 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.