Near Death Experiences

[johnny]

I think the Reformed are unlikely to have written much in this area because it is not among the things revealed, and the Reformed are very strong on sticking to those?

You may not find it among the Reformed but you might find it among the Mystics.
Teresa's Interior Castle comes to mind as a "for instance".

Finding it can prove nothing either way as you have sugested above,
but its an interesting conversation none the less.

 

[RamistThomist]

It's simply another line of evidence. It isn't to be raised to the level of dogma but nor is it to be dismissed outright. Answering the question--or evaluating the evidence--reveals what one believes about the nature of the soul, the limits of science, ontology, and life after death in general.

 

[Rom]

Meh, there are Hindu near death experiences as well. I remember my parents regaling me with tales of those who have come back, and have seen the Hindu "gods" and loved ones (just Google Hindu Near Death Experiences).

I wouldn't put any stock in a near death experience as revealing anything of God or our ourselves. We have His Word, and what it tells us of our souls, our life and our death; that should be enough.

 

[RamistThomist]

Meh, there are Hindu near death experiences as well. I remember my parents regaling me with tales of those who have come back, and have seen the Hindu "gods" and loved ones (just Google Hindu Near Death Experiences).

I wouldn't put any stock in a near death experience as revealing anything of God or our ourselves. We have His Word, and what it tells us of our souls, our life and our death; that should be enough.

The Christian Tradition has never denied that one can meet "entities" at near-death. The Christian Tradition also never denied the existence of these entities. The Tradition just didn't call them "gods" in the sense we use the term. If someone worships demons all his life, he shouldn't be surprised to find them meeting him at death.

Further, as Reformed Epistemology has taught us (cf William Alston)--experience is a legitimate source of basic belief, albeit a defeatible and penultimate source.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

Do we knowingly see angels now?

knowingly or willingly? I know people who do see angels (and demons).

Willing implies that they do appear to us regardless if we know about such a thing. However, do we know (are we aware through information) that they do such things? My question goes back to a biblical basis for the inquiry. We cannot base our understand on experiences alone since "the heart is more deceitful than all else" (Jer. 17). This is also why scripture tells us to renew our minds (Rom. 12).

Since a near death experience happens while we are still alive, then what would be the difference between a NDE and now?

For most people they are on their deathbed or the operating table.

This doesn't answer my question. I am speaking about the state of the person. If they are having a NDE then they are still alive. What is the difference in the state of the person that would necessitate an appearance? And again, where is the biblical warrant for such an idea?

Death is the tearing of spirit-soul from the flesh. I suppose that the state of the person is when the connection between spirit-soul and flesh begins to break down.

I had to think about this.

Death is the tearing of the spirit-soul from the flesh, but if you aren't dead... then you still have your spirit-soul, right? This isn't some cartoon where your spirit-soul is half-way out of your body when you are in the midst of a car crash. When your spirit-soul leaves you are dead. Any notion of being able to die (or partially die) and come back is nonsense. Man's spirit-soul can only leave his body once since this constitutes death (Heb. 9:27). Likewise we are not wiccan in that we believe the spirit can be projected out of the body to do "whatever" then re-enter the body. So, again, I'm still having trouble trying to see 1) why this is relevant when its most likely 2) NOT possible or plausible to have your condition changed until you are actually dead.

If the discussion was talking about seeing angels or demons or whatever, then that's a different discussion.

Experience is important, but it has to be validated by God's revealed will. If His revealed will does not give you authority to make such a claim, then it's human mythology at best.

By the way, I really hope this doesn't sound mean... I'm just giving my thoughts.

 

[RamistThomist]

Do we knowingly see angels now?

knowingly or willingly? I know people who do see angels (and demons).

Willing implies that they do appear to us regardless if we know about such a thing. However, do we know (are we aware through information) that they do such things? My question goes back to a biblical basis for the inquiry. We cannot base our understand on experiences alone since "the heart is more deceitful than all else" (Jer. 17). This is also why scripture tells us to renew our minds (Rom. 12).

Since a near death experience happens while we are still alive, then what would be the difference between a NDE and now?

For most people they are on their deathbed or the operating table.

This doesn't answer my question. I am speaking about the state of the person. If they are having a NDE then they are still alive. What is the difference in the state of the person that would necessitate an appearance? And again, where is the biblical warrant for such an idea?

Death is the tearing of spirit-soul from the flesh. I suppose that the state of the person is when the connection between spirit-soul and flesh begins to break down.

I had to think about this.

Death is the tearing of the spirit-soul from the flesh, but if you aren't dead... then you still have your spirit-soul, right? This isn't some cartoon where your spirit-soul is half-way out of your body when you are in the midst of a car crash. When your spirit-soul leaves you are dead. Any notion of being able to die (or partially die) and come back is nonsense. Man's spirit-soul can only leave his body once since this constitutes death (Heb. 9:27). Likewise we are not wiccan in that we believe the spirit can be projected out of the body to do "whatever" then re-enter the body. So, again, I'm still having trouble trying to see 1) why this is relevant when its most likely 2) NOT possible or plausible to have your condition changed until you are actually dead.

If the discussion was talking about seeing angels or demons or whatever, then that's a different discussion.

Experience is important, but it has to be validated by God's revealed will. If His revealed will does not give you authority to make such a claim, then it's human mythology at best.

By the way, I really hope this doesn't sound mean... I'm just giving my thoughts.

I should clarify: bodily death is the tearing. The soul enters a new modus of existence.

Experience is important, but it has to be validated by God's revealed will

I have no problem with that, but as Van Til taught us, terms like "validated" are precisely those up for debate. And I stand by my claim (and that of Reformed epistemology): experience is a legitimate, if defeasible source of basic belief.

If the discussion was talking about seeing angels or demons or whatever, then that's a different discussion.

Who is to say it is not? Augustine tended to conflate gods with angels/demons.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

I should clarify: bodily death is the tearing. The soul enters a new modus of existence.

Where is the biblical warrant for this? Anything outside of biblical authority is conjecture.

Who is to say it is not? Augustine tended to conflate gods with angels/demons.

Augustine also had a horrible view of the church which led to the Roman church's perversions.

 

[RamistThomist]

I should clarify: bodily death is the tearing. The soul enters a new modus of existence.

Where is the biblical warrant for this? Anything outside of biblical authority is conjecture.

Well, if you disagree with me you either hold to the heresy of soul-sleep or you hold that the soul is annihilated at death (also a heresy). Nothing I am saying is new but is traditional Christian teaching.

Assuming that the soul isn't annihilated or enters "soul sleep," then we are left with the soul in some form of existence, albeit not a bodily one.

Who is to say it is not? Augustine tended to conflate gods with angels/demons.

Augustine also had a horrible view of the church which led to the Roman church's perversions.

What does that have to do with anything? He also had a Gnostic view of sexual intercourse, but that doesn't mean we reject everything he says. But Daniel 9-10 seems to view the spirit of Persia as a demonic entity. Psalm 96 in the LXX says the gods of the nations are demons. Granted, that might not be the best translation, but it does show that mainstream Judaic thought early on and widespread held the view, so nothing I am saying is novel.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

I should clarify: bodily death is the tearing. The soul enters a new modus of existence.

Where is the biblical warrant for this? Anything outside of biblical authority is conjecture.

Well, if you disagree with me you either hold to the heresy of soul-sleep or you hold that the soul is annihilated at death (also a heresy). Nothing I am saying is new but is traditional Christian teaching.

Assuming that the soul isn't annihilated or enters "soul sleep," then we are left with the soul in some form of existence, albeit not a bodily one.

Here is what I'm understanding you to say and if I'm wrong correct me: you believe there is some in between state of the soul right before death when someone experiences a NDE. This in between state is where your soul is half-way between life and death, therefore this might cause some other worldly visions.

If this is what you are saying, then this needs biblical warrant.

Who is to say it is not? Augustine tended to conflate gods with angels/demons.

Augustine also had a horrible view of the church which led to the Roman church's perversions.

What does that have to do with anything? He also had a Gnostic view of sexual intercourse, but that doesn't mean we reject everything he says. But Daniel 9-10 seems to view the spirit of Persia as a demonic entity. Psalm 96 in the LXX says the gods of the nations are demons. Granted, that might not be the best translation, but it does show that mainstream Judaic thought early on and widespread held the view, so nothing I am saying is novel.

Just because Augustine said it, doesn't make it valid. This goes back to my first point: where is the biblical warrant? (Which still hasn't been answered)

 

[RamistThomist]

I should clarify: bodily death is the tearing. The soul enters a new modus of existence.

Where is the biblical warrant for this? Anything outside of biblical authority is conjecture.

Well, if you disagree with me you either hold to the heresy of soul-sleep or you hold that the soul is annihilated at death (also a heresy). Nothing I am saying is new but is traditional Christian teaching.

Assuming that the soul isn't annihilated or enters "soul sleep," then we are left with the soul in some form of existence, albeit not a bodily one.

Here is what I'm understanding you to say and if I'm wrong correct me: you believe there is some in between state of the soul right before death when someone experiences a NDE. This in between state is where your soul is half-way between life and death, therefore this might cause some other worldly visions.

If this is what you are saying, then this needs biblical warrant.

Who is to say it is not? Augustine tended to conflate gods with angels/demons.

Augustine also had a horrible view of the church which led to the Roman church's perversions.

What does that have to do with anything? He also had a Gnostic view of sexual intercourse, but that doesn't mean we reject everything he says. But Daniel 9-10 seems to view the spirit of Persia as a demonic entity. Psalm 96 in the LXX says the gods of the nations are demons. Granted, that might not be the best translation, but it does show that mainstream Judaic thought early on and widespread held the view, so nothing I am saying is novel.

Just because Augustine said it, doesn't make it valid. This goes back to my first point: where is the biblical warrant? (Which still hasn't been answered)

I see what you think I am saying. No, I am not saying there is a realm between life and death in which the soul may exist. What I am saying is that the Christian Tradition's teaching on the soul perfectly explains these accounts. And the accounts are just too overwhelming to be simply dismissed, whatever else they mean (we must interpret between fact and interpretation of fact).

I am not saying we need to make these accounts dogma. However, some of them are probably real and must be evaluated by Christians. I maintain the Christian understanding of the soul, angels, demons, and the afterlife provides us with resources to address this issue. I am not setting forth any dogma on the point.

Further, and this is a side note, if these accounts are real, or some of them anyway, then it utterly destroys the naturalistic worldview of Dennett, Dawkins, Washington DC, etc.

 

[TheOldCourse]

I should clarify: bodily death is the tearing. The soul enters a new modus of existence.

Where is the biblical warrant for this? Anything outside of biblical authority is conjecture.

Well, if you disagree with me you either hold to the heresy of soul-sleep or you hold that the soul is annihilated at death (also a heresy). Nothing I am saying is new but is traditional Christian teaching.

Assuming that the soul isn't annihilated or enters "soul sleep," then we are left with the soul in some form of existence, albeit not a bodily one.

Here is what I'm understanding you to say and if I'm wrong correct me: you believe there is some in between state of the soul right before death when someone experiences a NDE. This in between state is where your soul is half-way between life and death, therefore this might cause some other worldly visions.

If this is what you are saying, then this needs biblical warrant.

Who is to say it is not? Augustine tended to conflate gods with angels/demons.

Augustine also had a horrible view of the church which led to the Roman church's perversions.

What does that have to do with anything? He also had a Gnostic view of sexual intercourse, but that doesn't mean we reject everything he says. But Daniel 9-10 seems to view the spirit of Persia as a demonic entity. Psalm 96 in the LXX says the gods of the nations are demons. Granted, that might not be the best translation, but it does show that mainstream Judaic thought early on and widespread held the view, so nothing I am saying is novel.

Just because Augustine said it, doesn't make it valid. This goes back to my first point: where is the biblical warrant? (Which still hasn't been answered)

I see what you think I am saying. No, I am not saying there is a realm between life and death in which the soul may exist. What I am saying is that the Christian Tradition's teaching on the soul perfectly explains these accounts. And the accounts are just too overwhelming to be simply dismissed, whatever else they mean (we must interpret between fact and interpretation of fact).

I am not saying we need to make these accounts dogma. However, some of them are probably real and must be evaluated by Christians. I maintain the Christian understanding of the soul, angels, demons, and the afterlife provides us with resources to address this issue. I am not setting forth any dogma on the point.

Further, and this is a side note, if these accounts are real, or some of them anyway, then it utterly destroys the naturalistic worldview of Dennett, Dawkins, Washington DC, etc.

I'm not going to be able to engage in any protracted discussion due to time constraints so I probably shouldn't throw in my two cents, but in my experience the dominant and more dangerous competing worldview isn't naturalism but vague, existential spiritualism which not only has no trouble with these types of episodes but has an even more harmonious explanation of these events in that it generally views death as a "natural" (in the sense of being an ordinary part of ontology) transition from one form of existence to another, and like anything natural it can thus go awry or be incomplete. It's not much different than being half asleep.

I'm also not sure why we have to assume their truth to be probable just because it's widely (and not even that widely) reported any more than we have to assume the truth of relic mediated miracles because they were widely reported in the Middle Ages. A "naturalistic" explanation through the power of suggestion and expectation is no less probable nor incompatible in this case with Christian theism. Sometimes Dawkins may even be preferable to Chopra in certain cases. Even you are assuming most of them are nonsense ("some of them are probably")--most of them reporting such things are not members of the visible church and yet their experience is reported to be a blessed one. How likely is that on Reformed theology? And if we throw out the many that are not compatible with our theology, do we still have such numbers to make a probabilistic argument (assuming the propriety of such an argument to begin with)?

 

[RamistThomist]

I should clarify: bodily death is the tearing. The soul enters a new modus of existence.

Where is the biblical warrant for this? Anything outside of biblical authority is conjecture.

Well, if you disagree with me you either hold to the heresy of soul-sleep or you hold that the soul is annihilated at death (also a heresy). Nothing I am saying is new but is traditional Christian teaching.

Assuming that the soul isn't annihilated or enters "soul sleep," then we are left with the soul in some form of existence, albeit not a bodily one.

Here is what I'm understanding you to say and if I'm wrong correct me: you believe there is some in between state of the soul right before death when someone experiences a NDE. This in between state is where your soul is half-way between life and death, therefore this might cause some other worldly visions.

If this is what you are saying, then this needs biblical warrant.

Who is to say it is not? Augustine tended to conflate gods with angels/demons.

Augustine also had a horrible view of the church which led to the Roman church's perversions.

What does that have to do with anything? He also had a Gnostic view of sexual intercourse, but that doesn't mean we reject everything he says. But Daniel 9-10 seems to view the spirit of Persia as a demonic entity. Psalm 96 in the LXX says the gods of the nations are demons. Granted, that might not be the best translation, but it does show that mainstream Judaic thought early on and widespread held the view, so nothing I am saying is novel.

Just because Augustine said it, doesn't make it valid. This goes back to my first point: where is the biblical warrant? (Which still hasn't been answered)

I see what you think I am saying. No, I am not saying there is a realm between life and death in which the soul may exist. What I am saying is that the Christian Tradition's teaching on the soul perfectly explains these accounts. And the accounts are just too overwhelming to be simply dismissed, whatever else they mean (we must interpret between fact and interpretation of fact).

I am not saying we need to make these accounts dogma. However, some of them are probably real and must be evaluated by Christians. I maintain the Christian understanding of the soul, angels, demons, and the afterlife provides us with resources to address this issue. I am not setting forth any dogma on the point.

Further, and this is a side note, if these accounts are real, or some of them anyway, then it utterly destroys the naturalistic worldview of Dennett, Dawkins, Washington DC, etc.

I'm not going to be able to engage in any protracted discussion due to time constraints so I probably shouldn't throw in my two cents, but in my experience the dominant and more dangerous competing worldview isn't naturalism but vague, existential spiritualism which not only has no trouble with these types of episodes but has an even more harmonious explanation of these events in that it generally views death as a "natural" (in the sense of being an ordinary part of ontology) transition from one form of existence to another, and like anything natural it can thus go awry or be incomplete. It's not much different than being half asleep.

I'm also not sure why we have to assume their truth to be probable just because it's widely (and not even that widely) reported any more than we have to assume the truth of relic mediated miracles because they were widely reported in the Middle Ages. A "naturalistic" explanation through the power of suggestion and expectation is no less probable nor incompatible in this case with Christian theism. Sometimes Dawkins may even be preferable to Chopra in certain cases. Even you are assuming most of them are nonsense ("some of them are probably")--most of them reporting such things are not members of the visible church and yet their experience is reported to be a blessed one. How likely is that on Reformed theology? And if we throw out the many that are not compatible with our theology, do we still have such numbers to make a probabilistic argument (assuming the propriety of such an argument to begin with)?

Naturalism is the dominant view in academia and government. Vague spiritualism might be more widespread but it doesn't command official power.

As I have said, I don't automatically assume these stories to be true. But because so many people have them across cultures, times, and faiths, I tend to see a common variable which makes them harder to dismiss outright. As Van Til taught us, facts and interpretations of facts aren't the same thing.

 

[a mere housewife]

I was thinking of Christ's story about Lazarus' death, and how the rich man begs for Lazarus to be allowed to return from the dead and convince his five brothers.

But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’”

(Luke 16:29-31)

I was thinking of some questions too, on the flip side -- Does Scripture have purpose in the things it does not reveal? Should a pointed Scriptural silence, as here (there is no focus on the issue in the passages where someone is raised from the dead, though it was surely burning in all sorts of peoples' minds) be taken into consideration in discussing those things?

I think we agree that this isn't a matter for science. And you've also said that we can't determine anything authoritative by experience. So it's not an area in which we can have a working theory -- or know anything by faith -- it's not an area in which the mind can come to rest. What is the benefit of -- for lack of a better word -- disturbing the mind?

My own experience has been that thinking too much in unrevealed areas distracts me from Christ, and it's proved quite devastating sometimes. I don't want to put that forward as an argument but it is an 'experiential' thing to factor in.

 

[johnny]

I had no idea there is a genre called "Heavenly Tourism" which is popular in Christian Bookstores.

And then there's this case below which is quite sad,,,

Quote:
She even claimed that when Alex told a pastor that the book was made up,
the man told him the publication was a 'blessing' to people and to stay quiet.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...following-car-wreck-boy-claims-attention.html

 

[RamistThomist]

What is the benefit of -- for lack of a better word -- disturbing the mind?

I had no intention of disturbing the mind. I brought up an area of life of which many people have questions and I have noted that the Christian Tradition is in a key position to offer answers in a way that the dominant worldviews of the day cannot.

 

[Rom]

The Christian Tradition has never denied that one can meet "entities" at near-death. The Christian Tradition also never denied the existence of these entities. The Tradition just didn't call them "gods" in the sense we use the term. If someone worships demons all his life, he shouldn't be surprised to find them meeting him at death.

The Bible says - "it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment". Where do you get the idea from the Scriptures that you are going to meet demons at your death as a demon worshiper?

What tradition espouses the meeting of demons at death?

 

[RamistThomist]

The Christian Tradition has never denied that one can meet "entities" at near-death. The Christian Tradition also never denied the existence of these entities. The Tradition just didn't call them "gods" in the sense we use the term. If someone worships demons all his life, he shouldn't be surprised to find them meeting him at death.

The Bible says - "it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment". Where do you get the idea from the Scriptures that you are going to meet demons at your death as a demon worshiper?

What tradition espouses the meeting of demons at death?

The "judgment" doesn't happen immediately at death (or at least so Matthew 25 and Revelation 20-22 suggest).

As to meeting demons at death--a number of Christian traditions, namely EO, hold that. It doesn't mean they are right, to be sure, but it also shows I am not just making this up.

Since the Great Judgment doesn't immediately happen after death, and the wicked must go somewhere (spatial terms are misleading here), it isn't farfetched to understand demons (and even the nature of demons in this discussion isn't entirely clear) meeting them.

I think this makes sense since the soul, being immaterial, is going to be somewhere (the abyss, outer darkness, whatever) before the Judgment, and we are told in Jude that demons (or some of them) are held in outer darkness, I see something akin to the soul of the wicked.

 

[Rom]

Jacob,
The wicked immediately go to hell and await the final judgment. The righteous are immediately brought into the presence of God.

WCF 32 - 1. The bodies of men, after death, return to dust, and see corruption: (Gen. 3:19, Acts 13:36) but their souls, which neither die nor sleep, having an immortal subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them: (Luke 23:43, Eccl. 12:7) the souls of the righteous, being then made perfect in holiness, are received into the highest heavens, where they behold the face of God, in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies. (Heb. 12:23, 2 Cor. 5:1,6,8, Phil. 1:23, Acts 3:21, Eph. 4:10) And the souls of the wicked are cast into hell, where they remain in torments and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day. (Luke 16:23–24, Acts 1:25, Jude 6–7, 1 Pet. 3:19) Beside these two places, for souls separated from their bodies, the Scripture acknowledgeth none.

 

[RamistThomist]

Jacob,
The wicked immediately go to hell and await the final judgment. The righteous are immediately brought into the presence of God.

WCF 32 - 1. The bodies of men, after death, return to dust, and see corruption: (Gen. 3:19, Acts 13:36) but their souls, which neither die nor sleep, having an immortal subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them: (Luke 23:43, Eccl. 12:7) the souls of the righteous, being then made perfect in holiness, are received into the highest heavens, where they behold the face of God, in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies. (Heb. 12:23, 2 Cor. 5:1,6,8, Phil. 1:23, Acts 3:21, Eph. 4:10) And the souls of the wicked are cast into hell, where they remain in torments and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day. (Luke 16:23–24, Acts 1:25, Jude 6–7, 1 Pet. 3:19) Beside these two places, for souls separated from their bodies, the Scripture acknowledgeth none.

I know. My larger point is that "hell" isn't synonymous with the Final Judgment. I think it is more accurate to say with Scripture that Death and Hades will eventually be thrown into the lake of fire.

Let's rephrase my understanding of the post-mortem situation:

P1: Heaven and Hell aren't located within our space-time universe.
P2: I am using spatial and motion terms analogically, since heaven/hell aren't located within our geography, directional language can only mean so much.
P3: Therefore, one can say that demons (or angels) "meet" the deceased at death, if by that one means that the wicked, upon entering "hell" (again, not the most accurate term but I know what it is trying to connote), "meet" demons (or hypostatic torments if you want to call them that).

This is the summary of Christian eschatology that all traditions hold to.

Van Tillians like to say that the Bible addresses everything. Granted, that statement can be chalked up to Van Til's usual hyperbole, but I thought about taking him at his word and applying biblical inferences to questions Christians will face.

 

[RamistThomist]

And to reiterate a point that will probably be missed again--I am not saying there is a state between death and life. I've argued against Toll Houses against Eastern Orthodoxy. I am simply taking as logical inferences what we believe about angels, demons, the soul, etc. and putting them together in systematic fashion.

 

[Rom]

Polemics against Van Til aside - you should find it impossible to reconcile how pagan Near Death Experiences contain a "blessed" meeting of their "gods"/demons with what is described of Outer Darkness in the Word of God. You would then have to distort what Outer Darkness is, if you attempt to go down this road.

Personally, I find the line that you are going down quite concerning, as you not only are attempting to reconcile the irreconcilable (multitudes of conflicting experiences regarding NDE), but you are doing so at the expense of what God's Word plainly teaches.

The Word of God states - "The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law."

To me, you are peering into secret things that the Word of God doesn't speak to, in the attempt to reconcile bizarre experiences (which many give convincing physiological explanations for) for spiritual ones.

 

[RamistThomist]

you should find it impossible to reconcile how pagan Near Death Experiences contain a "blessed" meeting of their "gods"/demons with what is described of Outer Darkness in the Word of God.

Near Death isn't the same thing as Death, so it doesn't commit me to holding to Pleasant Pagan Experiences (and according to the documented literature, most of these aren't pleasant).

Personally, I find the line that you are going down quite concerning, as you not only are attempting to reconcile the irreconcilable (multitudes of conflicting experiences regarding NDE), but you are doing so at the expense of what God's Word plainly teaches.

No I am not. I have't contradicted the Word of God.

The Word of God states - "The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law."

Two points:
1) My comments are drawing from biblical revelation and what we have always taught about the soul, angels, and demons.
2) The Reformed faith teaches that inferences from the Word of God are as binding as the Word of God. I am simply following their lead.

To me, you are peering into secret things that the Word of God doesn't speak to, in the attempt to reconcile bizarre experiences (which many give convincing physiological explanations for) for spiritual ones.

And I have acknowledged some physiological explanations, but I, as a supernaturalist Christian, do not equate mind and brain, so physiological explanations can't deal with all of these accounts.

 

[Rom]

Brother, it seems to me as if you are discarding the evidence that you do not want to accept (pleasant experiences with Ganesh, Krishna, departed loved ones, etc.) by pagans and only keeping the evidence that you wish?

You said that these might have been encounters with demons in Outer Darkness. I then responded by saying that these could not be Outer Darkness, because their experience of it doesn't match what we are taught from God's Word. In addition, a good number of non-Christians (with a theistic worldview) also report pleasant experiences. A good number of professing Christians also report things that contradict what the Bible teaches. These experiences cannot be "Outer Darkness", nor what the Scriptures teach about going into the presence of God. I know nothing of an intermediate state taught in the Word besides the intermediate state after death and before the resurrection.

Yes, the Reformed Faith teaches that one can draw "Good and Necessary Consequence", but note what the Confession States in Chapter 1.6 - "The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit or traditions of men."

It would seem as if you are taking a logical leap from deducing from Scripture alone (see: Trinity, Paedo-Baptism, etc.) to using the conflicting experience of diverse men to come to some kind of guess as to what is going on.

Personally, I don't see this as the same thing.

 

[a mere housewife]

What is the benefit of -- for lack of a better word -- disturbing the mind?

I had no intention of disturbing the mind. I brought up an area of life of which many people have questions and I have noted that the Christian Tradition is in a key position to offer answers in a way that the dominant worldviews of the day cannot.

I understand Jacob. I was just trying to ask to what purpose one would pursue constructing anything -- you can't teach it as truth (a matter of revelation). You can't teach it as a working theory (a matter of science). If you come to believe in it yourself you'd be self deceived: besides simple distraction from what can be known by faith, this is a great danger: lots of people are self deceived in these areas. The mind can only agitate where it can't settle -- and this sort of agitation focuses away from Christ. To what end does one stir up their own or other minds that way?

I look forward to death personally, and greatly, as a way of waking satisfied in Christ's likeness (Psalm 17:15). Our focus in death should be on seeing Jesus -- which we are promised. Not to see Him is the soul's greatest loss, to be cut off from everything blessed -- something I can't bear to think of for anyone. If we are focusing on Him now through our earthly experience with eyes of faith (for He is the true vision of faith) -- that beatific vision will be familiar in some sense -- an extension of what we are already seeing.

Not exactly on topic -- but I read this poem over the weekend and thought of this discussion:

Close, mortal eyes: open, my eyes in heaven.
On consolations that the poor devise,
On the clay image and the candles seven
Close, mortal eyes.

Open upon the plains of the merry land,
Eternal eyes, on joy for ever whole:
Return with tidings I shall understand,
Eyes of my soul.

The soul has eyes: alas, she has no tongue,
She has no word of all the mysteries,
No syllable that may be said or sung.
Close, mortal eyes.

(Ruth Pitter)

 

[RamistThomist]

Brother, it seems to me as if you are discarding the evidence that you do not want to accept (pleasant experiences with Ganesh, Krishna, departed loved ones, etc.) by pagans and only keeping the evidence that you wish?

You said that these might have been encounters with demons in Outer Darkness. I then responded by saying that these could not be Outer Darkness, because their experience of it doesn't match what we are taught from God's Word. In addition, a good number of non-Christians (with a theistic worldview) also report pleasant experiences. A good number of professing Christians also report things that contradict what the Bible teaches. These experiences cannot be "Outer Darkness", nor what the Scriptures teach about going into the presence of God. I know nothing of an intermediate state taught in the Word besides the intermediate state after death and before the resurrection.

Yes, the Reformed Faith teaches that one can draw "Good and Necessary Consequence", but note what the Confession States in Chapter 1.6 - "The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit or traditions of men."

It would seem as if you are taking a logical leap from deducing from Scripture alone (see: Trinity, Paedo-Baptism, etc.) to using the conflicting experience of diverse men to come to some kind of guess as to what is going on.

Personally, I don't see this as the same thing.

I didn't discard any evidence. If you read closely you will see I conceded the point but further pointed out they are not the majority.

I had thought that the Reformed tradition, drawing upon the rich Christian Tradition of the soul, afterlife, angels, could use this as an apologetic. I was wrong.

 

[Rom]

I didn't discard any evidence. If you read closely you will see I conceded the point but further pointed out they are not the majority.

I had thought that the Reformed tradition, drawing upon the rich Christian Tradition of the soul, afterlife, angels, could use this as an apologetic. I was wrong.

Brother, the last thing I want to do is to discourage you from apologetics and "contending earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints". My critique is not intended against you personally, or your labors - but just in the arguments I saw. Keep contending for the faith, and fighting the good fight!

 

[RamistThomist]

You say you weren't impressed with my arguments, but my premises were all drawn from the Christian tradition, the negation of which would be heresy. I'll restate it.

P1: Body and Soul are not the same thing (correspondingly, neither are brain and mind, which is why I didn't put immediate stock in "physical" explanations. Physical explanations can only explain the brain, not the mind, otherwise the truth would lie with Dawkins).

P2: The soul outlives the body. Otherwise, Jesus' parable about Lazarus and the Rich Man would be incoherent.

P3: The Christian tradition holds to immaterial entities that do not exist spatially. We call them angels or demons (and we have a natural revelation analogue: Plato's Forms, Jung's Archetypes)

P4: These entities primary mode of existence is outside the time-space continuum. Otherwise Belinda Carlisle would be right and heaven would be a place on earth.

P5: (4) helps us understand the soul's mode of existence after death. Either it doesn't exist, and we have heresy. Or it exists on earth and we just committed ourselves to the next season of Ghost Hunters, or it exists "on the other side" (call it heaven or hell or hades).

P6: The key problem is that some think I have argued for a realm of existence between Death and Life called "near death experiences." I have argued for no such thing. I'm fine with mystery. But I am not going to be like the Eastern Orthodox apologists I debate and start chanting "Mystery" whenever I come across facts that don't fit my paradigm.

P7: The best explanation--and I am not arguing this as dogma--is that in those "near-death" moments the veil is pulled back or the boundary is weakened.

P8: What about the "Happy Hindus?" Or more precisely, say there is a dissolute person who sees the proverbial "bright light." Does that mean the wicked see "heaven?" Not necessarily. One of the key points I argued for--and this is Van Til 101--is that facts and interpretation of facts are not the same thing. The person is probably seeing new phenomena for which he or she has no previous way of evaluating and opts for the next closest analogue.

 

[Rom]

The only categories I see regarding unity of Body and Soul in the Bible are Death and Life. James 2:26 - "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also."

So, if the soul has left the body, we have death - and if death, we are immediately taken to the presence of God, or we are taken to Hell depending on where we stand in Christ.

Where does "Near Death" fit into that framework? From my understanding of your argument, you are trying to posit a condition in which the soul has left the body, but the person has not truly died, and the soul returns back to the body?

Re: facts and interpretation. All we have are interpretation of facts given to us by those who have experienced NDE.

By your very argument in discounting the "Happy Hindu", I do not have to accept interpretations of Near Death Experiences one bit. But I cannot discount what the Word of God says - which is that once body and soul are separated, we have death and immediate translation either to glory or hell.

 

[RamistThomist]

The only categories I see regarding unity of Body and Soul in the Bible are Death and Life. James 2:26 - "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also."

So, if the soul has left the body, we have death - and if death, we are immediately taken to the presence of God, or we are taken to Hell depending on where we stand in Christ.

I don't disagree with that, provided we understand hell is a temporary holding place.

Where does "Near Death" fit into that framework?

Life. The person is still alive. I thought I was quite clear on that point. The only unusual fact is that he is "near death." This isn't obscure.

From my understanding of your argument, you are trying to posit a condition in which the soul has left the body, but the person has not truly died, and the soul returns back to the body?

Jairus's daughter. Lazarus. The guy who fell asleep when Paul was preaching.

Re: facts and interpretation. All we have are interpretation of facts given to us by those who have experienced NDE.

Okay. Not sure what you are getting at.

By your very argument in discounting the "Happy Hindu", I do not have to accept interpretations of Near Death Experiences one bit.

That's fair. I'm not making you do anything. But "not accepting" them is not the same thing as offering a rebuttal which undercuts my position.

But I cannot discount what the Word of God says - which is that once body and soul are separated, we have death and immediate translation either to glory or hell.

Except for Lazarus, Jairus's daughter and the like. But I'm not sure where I argued for that. In an NDE the soul hasn't yet left the body, so I don't think you really understand what I am saying.

 

[Rom]

My misunderstanding of your position then. Forgive me. For some reason I had thought you were discussing a state where a soul had left the body to enter into Outer Darkness and had met with demons. How does a soul which has not left the body interact with Demons & Outer Darkness?