# Near Death Experiences



## RamistThomist

Does Reformed literature deal in detail with Near Death Experiences (NDEs)? Particularly to the claims that the dying or soon-to-be-dying see angels and demons? Granted, this is complicated by silly Christian literature but beyond that, are there any reliable texts on this?


----------



## Andrew P.C.

What does the bible say or imply? I would also ask if you see things, then how would this relate to Hebrews 11 when the writer tells us that " faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of _things not seen_"? Do we _knowingly_ see angels now? Since a near death experience happens while we are still _alive_, then what would be the difference between a NDE and now?


----------



## puritanpilgrim

It could be an mostly dead experience


----------



## RamistThomist

Andrew P.C. said:


> Do we _knowingly_ see angels now?



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



> 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.


----------



## toddpedlar

ReformedReidian said:


> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we _knowingly_ see angels now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> knowingly or willingly? I know people who do see angels (and demons).
Click to expand...


How exactly is it that they know what they're seeing is angels or demons?






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Miss Marple

How did Mary know? Etc.


----------



## RamistThomist

toddpedlar said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we _knowingly_ see angels now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> knowingly or willingly? I know people who do see angels (and demons).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How exactly is it that they know what they're seeing is angels or demons?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


I don't know how they know. The problem of criterion in epistemology is an infinite regress. 

But maybe it need not be. The Christian tradition has reflected long upon this and offered something along the lines of guidelines. Not infallible, of course, _pace_ Rome, but we aren't entirely in the dark, either.


----------



## puritanpilgrim

[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xbE8E1ez97M[/video]


----------



## Andrew P.C.

ReformedReidian said:


> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we _knowingly_ see angels now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> knowingly or willingly? I know people who do see angels (and demons).
Click to expand...


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?


----------



## Miss Marple

Still, my question about Mary was probably not on point. Mary was not having a "near death" experience. She was having a direct revelation.

It occurs to me that we are either alive, or dead, and there is no "in between" state.


----------



## JimmyH

I suppose this is sort of on topic. On September 20th, 1972 I was an ironworker's union apprentice working on the erection of an aeroplane hanger designed to house three 747s wingtip to wingtip. It was the largest cantilever in the south eastern United States. Around 10:30 in the morning I was on the 85 foot level bolting up with a partner. Two connectors were hanging iron on the same level but further out on the cantilever (a projection supported at one end only)

One of them made a fatal mistake and I saw him fall 85 feet to his death. I told my partner, who was facing the other way, that Monahan just 'went in the hole'. As he was turning to look over his shoulder towards the ground I said. "His brains just came out of his head." From my vantage point I saw something like a mass ooze from his head. We went down to the ground and I observed that there was nothing around his head. If I had not said what I did to my working partner I would have doubted what I saw. 

Can we see a soul leaving the body ? I really don't know what it was I saw, but I know I saw something, and I've since always thought it must have been something ethereal.


----------



## johnny

I do not know of any reformed literature dealing with NDE experiences.

I am open to the opinion of Dr Rick Strausman that during times of extreme stress,
the pineal gland in the base of the skull may produce Dimethyltryptamin (DMT) which 
would account for the strange "out of body" and "near death experiences".

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonat...olecule-director-mitch-schultz_b_2248834.html

This is possibly some form of self defence mechanism designed by God to protect brain function 
and may or may not have little to do with the spirit realm and otherworldly realities.

1 Cor 13:12
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; 
but then shall I know even as also I am known.


----------



## RamistThomist

Andrew P.C. said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we _knowingly_ see angels now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> knowingly or willingly? I know people who do see angels (and demons).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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?
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

ReformedReidian said:


> Near Death Experiences



I think you just had one in the thread about underlining library books.


----------



## Miss Marple

Now I remember Stephen, apparently partly in this world and partly in the next, seeing Jesus. So I guess there is biblical warrant for a sort of betwixt and between place.

Whether you "come back" from it I don't know. Can't think of any examples of that.


----------



## RamistThomist

Reformed Covenanter said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Near Death Experiences
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you just had one in the thread about underlining library books.
Click to expand...


Well said.


----------



## masterp48hd

ReformedReidian said:


> Does Reformed literature deal in detail with Near Death Experiences (NDEs)? Particularly to the claims that the dying or soon-to-be-dying see angels and demons? Granted, this is complicated by silly Christian literature but beyond that, are there any reliable texts on this?


I think near death experiences are due to the release of large quantities of ketamine in the brain, a instinctive response of the body trying to.numb tge pain of the body dying

Enviado desde mi LG-D618 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## toddpedlar

ReformedReidian said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we _knowingly_ see angels now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> knowingly or willingly? I know people who do see angels (and demons).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How exactly is it that they know what they're seeing is angels or demons?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know how they know. The problem of criterion in epistemology is an infinite regress.
> 
> But maybe it need not be. The Christian tradition has reflected long upon this and offered something along the lines of guidelines. Not infallible, of course, _pace_ Rome, but we aren't entirely in the dark, either.
Click to expand...


I wasn't asking such an obscure question as to run into the infinite regress issue. I only wanted to know what is it they say when asked how they know what they observed were angels and/or demons. In any case I have ever heard of, the things that are said do not match any Biblical description of either. My strong suspicion is that the vast majority of the time people claim this or that observation are figments of the imagination or mistaken assumptions about what they have seen - and that most NDEs are not at all correctly understood as such.


----------



## RamistThomist

toddpedlar said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we _knowingly_ see angels now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> knowingly or willingly? I know people who do see angels (and demons).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How exactly is it that they know what they're seeing is angels or demons?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know how they know. The problem of criterion in epistemology is an infinite regress.
> 
> But maybe it need not be. The Christian tradition has reflected long upon this and offered something along the lines of guidelines. Not infallible, of course, _pace_ Rome, but we aren't entirely in the dark, either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't asking such an obscure question as to run into the infinite regress issue. I only wanted to know what is it they say when asked how they know what they observed were angels and/or demons. In any case I have ever heard of, the things that are said do not match any Biblical description of either. My strong suspicion is that the vast majority of the time people claim this or that observation are figments of the imagination or mistaken assumptions about what they have seen - and that most NDEs are not at all correctly understood as such.
Click to expand...


I don't know what criterion they use to distinguish angels and demons. I have some ideas that match up to reports in church history, but that would have to be another thread. We could then ask--as Eastern Orthodox ask me all the time--how the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit isn't question-begging.

You say "majority" of these claims. Well, perhaps, but the majority of claims I've seen seem to be either angelic or demonic.


----------



## toddpedlar

Can you give an example?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RamistThomist

toddpedlar said:


> Can you give an example?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Most of my examples are from JP Moreland or Dallas Willard talks. I would have to transcribe the relevant sections. I suppose I could when I get around to it.


----------



## God'sElectSaint

masterp48hd said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does Reformed literature deal in detail with Near Death Experiences (NDEs)? Particularly to the claims that the dying or soon-to-be-dying see angels and demons? Granted, this is complicated by silly Christian literature but beyond that, are there any reliable texts on this?
> 
> 
> 
> I think near death experiences are due to the release of large quantities of ketamine in the brain, a instinctive response of the body trying to.numb tge pain of the body dying
> 
> Enviado desde mi LG-D618 mediante Tapatalk
Click to expand...


I had no idea the brain naturally released ketamine? If true that would explain the strange experiences. In my past life of sin I have used ketamine as a recreational drug and it definitely has some very strange effects.


----------



## RamistThomist

God'sElectSaint said:


> masterp48hd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does Reformed literature deal in detail with Near Death Experiences (NDEs)? Particularly to the claims that the dying or soon-to-be-dying see angels and demons? Granted, this is complicated by silly Christian literature but beyond that, are there any reliable texts on this?
> 
> 
> 
> I think near death experiences are due to the release of large quantities of ketamine in the brain, a instinctive response of the body trying to.numb tge pain of the body dying
> 
> Enviado desde mi LG-D618 mediante Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had no idea the brain naturally released ketamine? If true that would explain the strange experiences. In my past life of sin I have used ketamine as a recreational drug and it definitely has some very strange effects.
Click to expand...


It can explain some cases but not all. J.P. Moreland tells the following story of a student of his. The student's grandfather died on the operating table and his soul was "at the top of the room" (analogically, of course, it is hard to use spatial language of the soul when it is dis-embodied) and saw the two doctors trying to resuscitate him (they later did). One doctor said to let him die. The man was later resuscitated and began to cuss out the doctor.

I don't think ketamine can really explain that. What are we to make of that story. A hermeneutics of trust would take it as face-value unless an overriding defeater undercut the initial warrant. This is the most natural view. A hermeneutics of suspicion would say it is false and seek naturalistic explanations.


----------



## toddpedlar

ReformedReidian said:


> God'sElectSaint said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> masterp48hd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does Reformed literature deal in detail with Near Death Experiences (NDEs)? Particularly to the claims that the dying or soon-to-be-dying see angels and demons? Granted, this is complicated by silly Christian literature but beyond that, are there any reliable texts on this?
> 
> 
> 
> I think near death experiences are due to the release of large quantities of ketamine in the brain, a instinctive response of the body trying to.numb tge pain of the body dying
> 
> Enviado desde mi LG-D618 mediante Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had no idea the brain naturally released ketamine? If true that would explain the strange experiences. In my past life of sin I have used ketamine as a recreational drug and it definitely has some very strange effects.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It can explain some cases but not all. J.P. Moreland tells the following story of a student of his. The student's grandfather died on the operating table and his soul was "at the top of the room" (analogically, of course, it is hard to use spatial language of the soul when it is dis-embodied) and saw the two doctors trying to resuscitate him (they later did). One doctor said to let him die. The man was later resuscitated and began to cuss out the doctor.
> 
> I don't think ketamine can really explain that. What are we to make of that story. A hermeneutics of trust would take it as face-value unless an overriding defeater undercut the initial warrant. This is the most natural view. A hermeneutics of suspicion would say it is false and seek naturalistic explanations.
Click to expand...


Seems to me that this is all most naturally explained as the man's imagination supplementing what his senses gave him. It was described after the fact, after he had recovered, right?


----------



## RamistThomist

toddpedlar said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God'sElectSaint said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> masterp48hd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does Reformed literature deal in detail with Near Death Experiences (NDEs)? Particularly to the claims that the dying or soon-to-be-dying see angels and demons? Granted, this is complicated by silly Christian literature but beyond that, are there any reliable texts on this?
> 
> 
> 
> I think near death experiences are due to the release of large quantities of ketamine in the brain, a instinctive response of the body trying to.numb tge pain of the body dying
> 
> Enviado desde mi LG-D618 mediante Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had no idea the brain naturally released ketamine? If true that would explain the strange experiences. In my past life of sin I have used ketamine as a recreational drug and it definitely has some very strange effects.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It can explain some cases but not all. J.P. Moreland tells the following story of a student of his. The student's grandfather died on the operating table and his soul was "at the top of the room" (analogically, of course, it is hard to use spatial language of the soul when it is dis-embodied) and saw the two doctors trying to resuscitate him (they later did). One doctor said to let him die. The man was later resuscitated and began to cuss out the doctor.
> 
> I don't think ketamine can really explain that. What are we to make of that story. A hermeneutics of trust would take it as face-value unless an overriding defeater undercut the initial warrant. This is the most natural view. A hermeneutics of suspicion would say it is false and seek naturalistic explanations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems to me that this is all most naturally explained as the man's imagination supplementing what his senses gave him. It was described after the fact, after he had recovered, right?
Click to expand...


He was dead on the table and while dead he had exact knowledge of the doctors' and the conversation. Ergo, the doctrine of the soul and the reality of disembodied states.


----------



## Edward

ReformedReidian said:


> He was dead on the table



Define 'dead' in this context. Did the brain flatline? Or was it merely cardiac arrest?


----------



## RamistThomist

Edward said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was dead on the table
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define 'dead' in this context. Did the brain flatline? Or was it merely cardiac arrest?
Click to expand...


I do not know. I know Moreland addresses this more in detail in his book with Habermas.

While we should critically evaluate evidence, I don't see why this is a sticky point. The Christian plausibility structure lends credence to this, given our doctrine of the soul. Now, if I were Daniel Dennett I would argue against Moreland on this point.

But my position doesn't have to be that he was "dead dead." If either his brain flatlined or he had cardiac arrest, how could he know the doctors' conversation?


----------



## Edward

ReformedReidian said:


> If either his brain flatlined or he had cardiac arrest, how could he know the doctors' conversation?



If the heart stopped, the brain is going to keep working for a few minutes. During that time, the doctors probably cranked up the oxygen. If they cut back on the anesthesia, he's going to start waking up. The ears still work. So it isn't unlikely that he heard what the doctor said, but his brain is going to still be affected by the chemicals in his system. 

I started waking up during fairly minor surgery one time. The memories are an interesting mix of probable reality and likely 'fill in the blanks'.


----------



## RamistThomist

Edward said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> If either his brain flatlined or he had cardiac arrest, how could he know the doctors' conversation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the heart stopped, the brain is going to keep working for a few minutes. During that time, the doctors probably cranked up the oxygen. If they cut back on the anesthesia, he's going to start waking up. The ears still work. So it isn't unlikely that he heard what the doctor said, but his brain is going to still be affected by the chemicals in his system.
> 
> I started waking up during fairly minor surgery one time. The memories are an interesting mix of probable reality and likely 'fill in the blanks'.
Click to expand...


Again, I must claim ignorance on the specific details, though I know Moreland and Habermas dealt with the specifics. Even so, it doesn't explain his claim that he "saw" (using sensory terms analogically here. The Patristics and the Medievals were aware of the problems of how the soul perceives data) the doctors from above.


----------



## a mere housewife

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? Who can even scientifically determine the exact moment of the separation of the soul from the body, or whether what anyone experiences lies on this or the other side? Why don't we have an inspired record of Lazarus' experience? Or of that of the man Christ raised, or of Jairus' daughter? The gospel writer's weren't concerned with recording the after death experience: they were concerned with what Christ did in raising them. I don't think it's appropriate to leap to the conclusion that people are liars as to their experiences, but we don't believe experience is an authoritative guide: we believe against experience, wherever the word of God contradicts it (as Abraham believed, both in receiving Isaac in birth and his belief that he would be raised from the dead, if need be). One of the most understated things to me about revelation is the way it takes all these questions I have, sets most of them aside, and speaks about Christ. What we know is that if this were helpful to our vision of Christ -- it would have been included.

I struggled with this a few years ago wondering about Lewis' and Charles Williams' experiences with 'co-inherence'. -- Lewis prays for his wife to get well from her bone disease and miraculously bone starts to regrow in her body, while his bones become full of holes. Why don't the reformed write about these things? 

Perhaps because we'd make saints of ourselves or others, or feel guilty for not having whatever it takes to bear more of the world's pain away etc (as I did after reading this) -- instead of being simple and childlike in our utter need of our Saviour. I can believe that sometimes God allows people to bear one another's burdens in unusual ways in answer to prayer and in likeness to Christ. But I think faith isn't going to pry into the how and when and why, as though the human mind could figure it out, when God hasn't told us about it or even told us to ask for it. We're told simply to bear one another's burdens (as Christ did ours) and to submit all our requests to our Heavenly Father (as Christ did). This is enough for faith, whether we're allowed to help in any way or have to sit by while the other struggles to death (which eventually, Lewis had to do, too -- and I expect it was much harder than the other). 

I think probably it would be worse if we were given more, but that distracted from our view of Christ -- faith has a hard enough time clinging to Him already, through all experience?


----------



## johnny

a mere housewife said:


> 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.


----------



## kodos

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

kodos said:


> 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.

ReformedReidian said:


> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we _knowingly_ see angels now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> knowingly or willingly? I know people who do see angels (and demons).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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

Andrew P.C. said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we _knowingly_ see angels now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> knowingly or willingly? I know people who do see angels (and demons).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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.

ReformedReidian said:


> 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

Andrew P.C. said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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.

ReformedReidian said:


> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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. 



ReformedReidian said:


> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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

Andrew P.C. said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is to say it is not? Augustine tended to conflate gods with angels/demons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Augustine also had a horrible view of the church which led to the Roman church's perversions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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)
Click to expand...


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

ReformedReidian said:


> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is to say it is not? Augustine tended to conflate gods with angels/demons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Augustine also had a horrible view of the church which led to the Roman church's perversions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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

TheOldCourse said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is to say it is not? Augustine tended to conflate gods with angels/demons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Augustine also had a horrible view of the church which led to the Roman church's perversions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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)?
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## kodos

ReformedReidian said:


> 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

kodos said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## kodos

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

kodos said:


> 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.


----------



## kodos

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

kodos said:


> 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).



kodos said:


> 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. 



kodos said:


> 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.



kodos said:


> 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.


----------



## kodos

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

ReformedReidian said:


> 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.
Click to expand...


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

kodos said:


> 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.


----------



## kodos

ReformedReidian said:


> 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.


----------



## kodos

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

kodos said:


> 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.


----------



## kodos

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?


----------



## a mere housewife

Jacob, was Christ just reviving Jairus' daughter, the widow's son, Lazarus etc., in a certain window of opportunity after they stopped breathing, or went into a coma, etc? Are we sure their experiences are the same as what happens when someone is medically revived? (This goes back to whether science can even determine at what point the soul leaves the body?) 

Re: possible conclusions -- all of these seem potentially valid:

1. The boundary between the flesh world and the spirit world *may* be weakened in some conditions: though in Scripture, God manifested the spiritual world to someone's senses quite apart from physical states (Cornelius, Gehazi, etc).

2. Chemicals released in the brain *may* be causing the mind to experience something 'spiritually' that is not a genuine spiritual experience. All kinds of bodily conditions (in my case, tea deprivation) affect us in ways we translate spiritually _precisely because_ mind and brain are distinct, but they do not involve genuine spiritual exercise. My tea drinking or lack thereof does not constitute any exercise of faith or any reception of anything by means of it. I may have to exercise faith against my 'spiritual' perceptions when I'm deprived of tea, or against the sense of a good conscience I have simply from being replenished thereby, even though I may be neglecting prayer, etc.

3. People's subconscious minds *may* be producing something akin to a dream. Just as a lot of people dream about insects under stress -- people with any sort of spiritual consciousness may tend to 'dream' about bright lights and presences -- soothing or troubling -- in certain physical states. 

4. There *may* be some combination of various factors of the above, or others I haven't thought of.

It would seem impossible to do more than give a scattershot of possibilities, which could vary from case to case -- even on a Christian worldview. The Christian tradition accepts the validity of all the above explanations. If we didn't accept 2 and 3, we'd have to grant some kind of unveiling of ulterior reality to dreams about giant insects, and we'd have to treat physical depression as a primarily spiritual problem. 

The Bible does teach the reality of the spiritual world; but I don't think the experiences add anything to its authority, and they confuse its testimony -- and other religions can also offer an explanation. I think you're right that they would make a weak polemic. I wouldn't be convinced of anything by it -- though I'm a fairly gullible person who natively doesn't put much stock in scientific claims to explain everything. 

They do however, absorb a lot of peoples' attention -- the evidence of that abounds -- which would be so much better focused on something we can actually know, and that would exercise faith on its true object.


----------



## RamistThomist

kodos said:


> 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?



Souls that haven't left the body interact with demons all the time. That's the logic behind demon possession. As to "outer darkness," I Have no position on that.


----------



## RamistThomist

a mere housewife said:


> Jacob, was Christ just reviving Jairus' daughter, the widow's son, Lazarus etc., in a certain window of opportunity after they stopped breathing, or went into a coma, etc? Are we sure their experiences are the same as what happens when someone is medically revived? (This goes back to whether science can even determine at what point the soul leaves the body?)



Scripture seems to think they were dead.



> Re: possible conclusions -- all of these seem potentially valid:
> 
> 1. The boundary between the flesh world and the spirit world *may* be weakened in some conditions: though in Scripture, God manifested the spiritual world to someone's senses quite apart from physical states (Cornelius, Gehazi, etc).



No disagreement there.



> 2. Chemicals released in the brain *may* be causing the mind to experience something 'spiritually' that is not a genuine spiritual experience. All kinds of bodily conditions (in my case, tea deprivation) affect us in ways we translate spiritually _precisely because_ mind and brain are distinct, but they do not involve genuine spiritual exercise. My tea drinking or lack thereof does not constitute any exercise of faith or any reception of anything by means of it. I may have to exercise faith against my 'spiritual' perceptions when I'm deprived of tea, or against the sense of a good conscience I have simply from being replenished thereby, even though I may be neglecting prayer, etc.



For one, what is a "spiritual experience" and how does the brain cause the mind to experience a non-spiritual experience spiritually? 

I agree with you that the brain and mind can supervene on one another. That is part of the logic behind the CIA's MK-ULTRA program. 



> 3. People's subconscious minds *may* be producing something akin to a dream. Just as a lot of people dream about insects under stress -- people with any sort of spiritual consciousness may tend to 'dream' about bright lights and presences -- soothing or troubling -- in certain physical states.



Yes, that may happen, but it doesn't explain how a person can come back with knowledge otherwise inaccessible.




> They do however, absorb a lot of peoples' attention -- the evidence of that abounds -- which would be so much better focused on something we can actually know, and that would exercise faith on its true object.



I disagree. Augustine said the two most important things were to know God and to know the soul. I am simply drawing out inferences of what the soul means for the Christian tradition.


----------



## a mere housewife

ReformedReidian said:


> Scripture seems to think they were dead.



Yes, they were dead. It's nice to agree on that . But we don't know that about the near death experiences -- we don't have revelation on those.



> For one, what is a "spiritual experience" and how does the brain cause the mind to experience a non-spiritual experience spiritually?



I think Lewis is good on this -- even the Screwtape Letters, where one (*fictional*) demon is advising another to fool his subject into thinking he's having a spiritual crisis, when he really just needs to eat. A genuine spiritual 'experience' -- experience that is genuinely in touch with spiritual reality -- is in the exercise of faith. 'Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.' (Hebrews 11:1) Faith is the vision of the soul. It rests in the word of God. (2 Peter 1:19) It sees Christ. (Hebrews 12:2) All else could be deception: the devil is fundamentally a liar, and he's trying to destroy faith, not superstition. 



> Yes, that may happen, but it doesn't explain how a person can come back with knowledge otherwise inaccessible.



Not all the experiences -- probably not even most of them -- grant people knowledge that is otherwise inaccessible. (None has been cited here: if you're referring to the man who knew the doctors were arguing -- that is accessible via the senses. Often I have hallucinations that involve a waking consciousness of the room I'm in, with nightmare superimposed in some fashion. Ruben has had dreams of looking down on himself from the top of a room.) If you're referring to some uncanny knowledge of future events, that can happen even without a near death experience. So the scattershot of potential explanations remain, and the witness of these experiences will not hold the weight of truth, or of working theory.



> I disagree. Augustine said the two most important things were to know God and to know the soul. I am simply drawing out inferences of what the soul means for the Christian tradition.



I remember being amazed -- I think it was in the Confessions? -- at Augustine chastening his luminous and vast curiosity for running off after a -- I think it was a dog! -- because he felt it wasn't to edification. We've agreed this isn't in the realm of science, and it isn't in the realm of revelation. We can't 'know' this. Augustine's quote applies to what can be *known*.

I probably won't reply further as I think we'd just be going in circles from here. These experiences can prove nothing and be proved by nothing. Faith does at some point, like a child (not an Eastern Orthodox mystic, just like a five year old), accept a lot of mystery -- even about ourselves (Psalm 131).


----------



## RamistThomist

a mere housewife said:


> I think Lewis is good on this -- even the Screwtape Letters, where one (*fictional*) demon is advising another to fool his subject into thinking he's having a spiritual crisis, when he really just needs to eat. A genuine spiritual 'experience' -- experience that is genuinely in touch with spiritual reality -- is in the exercise of faith. 'Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.' (Hebrews 11:1) Faith is the vision of the soul. It rests in the word of God. (2 Peter 1:19) It sees Christ. (Hebrews 12:2) All else could be deception: the devil is fundamentally a liar, and he's trying to destroy faith, not superstition.



While we are on that book, at the very end Screwtape (or Lewis's speaking through Screwtape) says angels and demons visit the deceased Christian at his death



a mere housewife said:


> Augustine's quote applies to what can be *known*.



True, and Augustine posited different modes of knowing. The soul can't be known empirically, for example.


----------



## RamistThomist

Another interesting point. I wonder if we can generalize that the righteous soul after death is floating in realms of bliss. Sure, he's in the presence of God, but that might not always mean the same thing that we would normally think. The souls in Revelation 6 are _crying_ to God, asking for blood vengeance--and not given immediate relief except to "wait a little longer."


----------



## Edward

kodos said:


> Personally, I find the line that you are going down quite concerning


----------



## RamistThomist

To be sure, Kodos has since realized what I was and was not saying so that comment doesn't apply. And generalized comments about "the path I'm taken" (which is pure Augustinianism--read City of God, Bks 2, 7-10) is irrelevant if someone doesn't specifically address my theses. Heidi and Kodos have since done this and have realized I am not saying anything out of bounds with the Christian Tradition (indeed, I've made the argument that I am maintaining it).

And also in line with C.S. Lewis (see last part of _Screwtape Letters_ and the _Entirety of the Space Trilogy_)


----------



## a mere housewife

Dear Jacob, I am bowing out of the conversation for other reasons (I enjoy discussion, but not fruitless arguing) -- not because my position changed at all throughout. From my first response I have agreed that there *may* be elements of contact with spiritual reality in some near death experiences. But we cannot *know* what is happening in things that are not revealed, and we cannot even come to the sort of knowledge that is good enough for scientific purposes. These experiences are not a reliable source of information about the supernatural world -- any more than fiction books by a fallible human author (who was not claiming to teach theology. I cited Lewis as giving advice in Screwtape about day to day Christian life, experiences that do lie more in the realm of our observation).

Christ himself told a story where the angels carry a man to the bosom of Abraham. It was the one that ends with his pointed statement that if people will not believe Moses and the prophets, they will not believe if someone returns from the dead.

Of course I believe in angels and in the soul: even Psalm 131 tells me that I have a soul. I don't know how a confused testimony would tell me more. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that angels carry us to Christ when we die. But it's Christ we are told about, and Christ we should be focusing on. The unfallen angels wouldn't want us to focus on them, and we're warned against focusing too much on angels (Colossians 2).

I did not mean to be smarmy when I said that I thought you were right that it wasn't a good polemic. I thought you were serious in saying that you were wrong in thinking it could be used that way. I rarely do mean to be smarmy . I do mean not to argue further: I don't like to be at odds with my family in Christ. But I have to stand by what I said about some things being unprofitable, and I've learned that the hard way myself.

Psalm 131

O LORD, my heart is not lifted up;
my eyes are not raised too high;
I do not occupy myself with things
too great and too marvelous for me.
But I have calmed and quieted my soul,
like a weaned child with its mother;
like a weaned child is my soul within me.

O Israel, hope in the LORD
from this time forth and forevermore.


----------

