Chapter 32

Engaging Specific Theological Objections Against NDEs

Some Christians, when they first encounter the topic of near-death experiences, raise a series of theological objections that sound serious. "Doesn't this undermine the sufficiency of Scripture?" "Isn't this just necromancy in modern dress?" "Didn't Jesus Himself say the dead don't come back?" "If you are a cessationist, doesn't all this miracle-talk go out the window?" "Don't NDEs teach a soft universalism that says everybody goes to heaven?" "If they were really from God, wouldn't all the reports match perfectly?"

I take these objections seriously. They are raised by sincere believers who love the Bible and want to protect the church from error. That is a good instinct. But I am also convinced that each one, carefully examined, turns out to be answerable — and answerable without doing any harm to historic Christian doctrine. In this chapter, we will work through each objection in turn, present the concern as fairly as I can, and then offer a biblical response.¹ Chapters 30 (on biblical precedent) and 31 (on wholesale dismissal) carry part of the load. This chapter focuses tightly on the specific objections themselves.

1. "NDEs Violate the Sufficiency of Scripture"

The most common theological objection I hear runs like this: the Bible is sufficient. Paul wrote to Timothy that "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16-17, ESV). If Scripture equips us "for every good work," what could NDEs possibly add? Some critics argue that even paying attention to NDEs is a kind of theological bypass — going around the Bible to seek information God has already chosen not to give us in His written Word.²

I share the concern about Scripture's authority. Anything that competes with the Bible should be rejected. But I think this objection rests on a confusion about what "sufficiency" actually means. Let's slow down and look at what Paul is saying.

Notice that Paul is not saying, "The Bible is the only source of any kind of useful information in the Christian life." He is saying that Scripture is "profitable" — the Greek word here is ōphelimos (ὠφέλιμος), which simply means "useful, beneficial, advantageous." J. Steve Miller helpfully points out that Paul is not telling Timothy, "All you need for effective ministry is to know your Bible." If that were Paul's point, he would also have to throw out his other counsel: take Timothy's mentor relationship (2 Timothy 3:10), gather with the church (Hebrews 10:25), care for the body (1 Timothy 5:23), pray (Ephesians 6:18), and gain wisdom from books and conversation (Proverbs 18:15).³ The Bible itself encourages us to learn from creation (Psalm 19:1-4), from conscience (Romans 2:14-15), and from godly counsel (Proverbs 11:14). Paul, the same apostle who wrote 2 Timothy, freely quoted pagan poets in his sermon at Athens (Acts 17:28).

So sufficiency does not mean exclusivity. The doctrine of sola Scriptura, properly understood, teaches that Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith and practice. It does not teach that Scripture is the only place we can ever learn anything about God, ourselves, or the world. We can learn from cosmology that the universe had a beginning — and that confirms what Scripture already teaches. NDEs work the same way.

Miller makes another useful observation about 2 Peter 1:19, where Peter speaks of having "the prophetic word made more sure" by what he saw at the Transfiguration. Peter's first-hand experience did not compete with Scripture. It confirmed Scripture. NDEs and DBEs function the same way for many experiencers: their encounter with the other side does not lead them away from the Bible but deeper into it.⁴ That is the opposite of what we would expect if NDEs threatened Scripture's sufficiency.

2. "NDEs Constitute Necromancy"

The second objection is that NDEs amount to forbidden contact with the dead. The Bible's prohibition is clear:

"There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer or a charmer or a medium or a necromancer or one who inquires of the dead, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD" (Deuteronomy 18:10-12, ESV).

Leviticus 19:31 adds, "Do not turn to mediums or necromancers; do not seek them out." Isaiah 8:19 mocks those who consult "the mediums and the necromancers who chirp and mutter," asking, "should not a people inquire of their God?"⁵ Some Christians read these texts and conclude that any contact with the deceased — whether sought or not — falls under the same condemnation.

I take this objection more seriously than the first one, because it is grounded in clear biblical commands. But when we look closely at what is actually being forbidden, the picture sharpens.

The Hebrew word translated "medium" is 'ob (אוֹב), which refers to a practitioner who claims to summon the dead through ritual technique. The verbs across these passages are active: practices, inquires, seeks out, turns to, consults. The thing condemned is the human attempt to break into the spiritual realm through forbidden methods — séances, divination tools, occult ritual. The classic biblical example is Saul going to the medium at Endor (1 Samuel 28). Saul actively sought out a forbidden practitioner, paid her, and asked her to bring up Samuel.

NDEs and DBEs are nothing like that. They are passive. The patient is unconscious during cardiac arrest, near-drowning, or major trauma. He is not performing a ritual. He is not consulting a medium. He is not even asking for the experience. He is being resuscitated by paramedics. The encounter, whatever it is, comes to him uninvited. As I have argued elsewhere in the book (especially in Chapter 14, which treats this in depth, and Chapter 28 on psychics and mediums), the direction of communication matters enormously. Necromancy is a human reaching out to grab; an NDE is a person being grabbed.⁶

There is a second consideration. The Bible itself contains many passive encounters with deceased people that are clearly not condemned as necromancy. Moses and Elijah, both dead for centuries, appeared with Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration (Matthew 17:1-8) and conversed with Him. Abraham and the rich man held a conversation across the chasm in Luke 16. Stephen, dying, saw the heavens opened and Jesus standing at the right hand of God (Acts 7:55-56). Paul was caught up to "the third heaven" (2 Corinthians 12:2-4) — to the dwelling place of the righteous dead. None of these encounters earned a single rebuke for breaking Deuteronomy 18.⁷ The reason is the same in every case: the encounter was initiated from God's side, not from the human side.

So the necromancy objection, while well-intentioned, misreads the biblical prohibition. NDEs do not fit the category being forbidden.

3. "Luke 16:19-31 Proves the Dead Don't Come Back"

The third objection is one of the most quoted by Christian critics of NDEs. In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the rich man — now in Hades — begs Abraham to send Lazarus back to warn his five brothers. Abraham refuses. Why?

"They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.... 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, ESV).

Critics like John MacArthur read this passage as a flat prohibition: the dead don't come back. Period. So any NDE account where someone "comes back" must be either fraud or demonic. Michael Sabom, although a strong defender of NDEs, also takes this passage seriously and acknowledges that "once dead, forever dead. Without the direct intervention of God, persons who have died do not rise from the dead back to life again."⁸

I think Sabom's wording is precisely right, and it actually defuses the objection. Notice the qualifier: without the direct intervention of God. The Bible itself records seven cases where God did exactly that. The widow of Zarephath's son (1 Kings 17:17-24). The Shunammite's son (2 Kings 4:32-37). The man revived by Elisha's bones (2 Kings 13:21). Jairus's daughter (Mark 5:21-43). The widow of Nain's son (Luke 7:11-15). Lazarus (John 11:1-44). Eutychus (Acts 20:9-12). And of course, Jesus Himself.⁹ The supposed iron rule that "the dead never come back" was never an iron rule. It was a normal pattern with God-authored exceptions throughout biblical history.

The deeper exegetical point is this: the parable of the rich man and Lazarus is not teaching a metaphysical claim that resuscitation is impossible. It is teaching a moral and revelatory claim: people who refuse to repent on the basis of Scripture will not repent on the basis of a returning ghost either.¹⁰ If you read Luke 16 as primarily a passage about the sufficiency of Scripture for salvation, it actually agrees with the response I gave to objection 1. Abraham is saying, "Scripture is enough to lead them to repentance — and if they will not be moved by Scripture, no extra evidence will move them either."

There is also a category-issue here. NDErs have not died in the final, biblical sense. They have suffered clinical death — usually cardiac arrest — and been resuscitated by modern medicine. The Bible's "appointed for man to die once" (Hebrews 9:27) refers to the final, irreversible death from which only the resurrection brings return. NDErs are like the people Jesus and the apostles raised: brought back to continue their earthly lives. To call this a violation of Luke 16 is to confuse two very different categories.¹¹

Finally, the Bible itself includes living people who experienced the heavenly realm and returned. Paul "knew a man" — almost certainly himself — "caught up to the third heaven" (2 Corinthians 12:2-4). Stephen, while still alive, saw into heaven (Acts 7:55-56). Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and John saw heavenly visions. NDEs sit somewhere on this spectrum — they are not radically different in kind from biblical heavenly visions. (Chapter 30 treats these biblical precedents in depth.)

4. "Cessationism Rules Out NDEs"

The fourth objection comes from a particular theological tradition. Cessationism is the view that the miraculous gifts of the Spirit — tongues, prophecy, miracles of healing, and apostolic signs — ceased with the close of the New Testament era. If miracles have ceased, the argument runs, then NDEs (which are clearly supernatural if real) cannot be from God. They must therefore be either hallucinations or demonic counterfeits.¹²

I want to be fair to cessationists. The position is not silly. It is held by serious, godly scholars (John MacArthur is the most prominent example), and it grew historically out of two real problems: the Catholic claim of ongoing magisterial revelation, and various excesses among charismatic movements. Cessationism guards the church against both.

But the cessationist objection to NDEs proves far too much. Even most cessationists do not actually believe that all supernatural activity ceased after the apostles. As George Gunn writes, "It is important when discussing miracles in the context of the cessationist/continuationist debate, to distinguish between miracles that are worked by the sovereign activity of God and miracles performed by men who have a gift of working of miracles. Nearly all Cessationists believe that the former kind of miracles is still a part of the way God works in the world today. It is only the gift of working miracles that has ceased."¹³

This distinction is crucial. NDEs are not a "gift of working miracles." NDErs are not credentialed prophets. They do not stand up in church the next Sunday and say, "Listen to my new revelation, which adds to Scripture." They do not perform signs and wonders. They do not establish authority. NDEs are passive, providential, personal experiences. They fall under the same category as answered prayer, providential guidance, and a sense of God's presence — categories that even the strictest cessationists generally affirm.¹⁴

Miller observes the same thing: "Since NDEs/DBEs come passively, rather than actively caused by a miracle-worker, and don't qualify experiencers for special status, such as a prophet, I assume that such experiences are not the primary concern of cessationists."¹⁵ I agree. A cessationist can comfortably believe that God still answers prayer, that He still intervenes providentially in human lives, and that He sometimes — at the threshold of death — gives a person a glimpse of the other side, all without granting that the apostolic gifts have continued. Cessationism is not, in fact, a barrier to taking NDEs seriously.

5. "NDEs Teach Universalism"

A fifth objection is that NDEs lead people to believe everyone goes to heaven, all religions are equally valid, and there is no judgment. This is a serious worry. If NDEs really pushed experiencers toward universalism in this loose sense, that would be a major problem.

I treat this question comprehensively in Chapter 23 (on postmortem opportunity and universalism) and Chapter 27 (on the "all religions are equal" claim), so I will only summarize here. Three points are sufficient.

First, the empirical data does not support the universalism charge. Sabom's Atlanta Study examined 47 NDErs and found that "a belief in reincarnation and in Eastern, universalist religion is not a direct aftereffect of near-death experience."¹⁶ Of the four NDErs in his study who changed their Christian doctrinal beliefs, all four moved toward more conservative Christianity — not less. Penny Sartori's UK hospital study found the same pattern: increased prayer, increased Bible reading, increased church attendance.¹⁷ The actual fruit of NDEs is more orthodox faith, not less.

Second, NDErs are not visiting their final destination. They are sent back. The love they encounter is genuine, but it is encountered during a temporary visit while earthly life still lies ahead. Jesus' loving demeanor toward NDErs is exactly what we should expect from the Jesus who befriended sinners in the Gospels. Love now does not preclude judgment later.

Third — and this is the most important point — we have to distinguish what an NDEr experienced from how she interpreted what she experienced (Chapter 26 develops this in depth). An NDEr may genuinely encounter overwhelming love and then conclude, "All religions are the same." But that conclusion is her own theological reasoning. It is not what was directly communicated. The experience of divine love does not logically entail that every religious system is equally true any more than my doctor's love for me implies that every cure is equally effective. Love and truth are not the same kind of claim.

6. "If NDEs Were from God, They'd All Be Consistent"

The final objection is: if these experiences came from the same God, they should all match. But the reports vary. One person describes a garden, another a city, another a featureless sea of light. One sees Jesus; another sees a generic "being." Doesn't this prove the whole thing is made up?

I want to challenge the premise behind this objection. Far from being inconsistent, NDEs are strikingly consistent in their core features.¹⁸ Jeffrey Long's analysis of 1,300 NDEs found a stable cluster of features showing up again and again across cultures and decades: separation of consciousness from the body, heightened senses, intense positive emotion, a tunnel or transition, encountering a brilliant light, meeting other beings (deceased loved ones or divine figures), altered time, life review, heavenly landscapes, special knowledge, a barrier, and a return to the body. The core is remarkably uniform.

What varies is the peripheral detail. And that variation is exactly what we would expect on a Christian framework, for two reasons.

The second reason is the experience-versus-interpretation distinction I mentioned above. The core experience may be consistent — encounter with overwhelming light and love — while the experiencer's theological interpretation reflects her existing categories. A Hindu may describe the being as Krishna; a Christian, as Jesus; a secular person, as "a being of light." That does not mean each met a different deity. It means each tried to translate what they saw into the vocabulary they already had. The reality is one; the interpretive lenses differ.

So when a critic says, "If they were really from God, they'd all match," I want to ask: match in what sense? In the core features, they do match — astonishingly so. In peripheral details and personal interpretation, they don't — and shouldn't, given the size of the heavenly realm and the diversity of the people visiting it.

Conclusion

I have walked through six of the most common theological objections raised against NDEs by sincere Christians. Each of them deserved a careful, biblical answer, and each of them, I believe, has one.

The sufficiency of Scripture is preserved when we recognize that NDEs offer testimony, not revelation — confirming what the Bible already teaches, not adding to it. The necromancy prohibition targets active human ritual, not passive medical-crisis encounters. Luke 16 teaches the persuasive priority of Scripture, not a metaphysical impossibility of return. Cessationism, properly understood, does not rule out God's ongoing providential activity, which is the right category for NDEs. The universalism charge is undermined by the actual empirical data, by the temporary nature of the encounter, and by the experience-interpretation distinction. And the consistency objection misreads the data: NDEs are deeply consistent in their core features, with peripheral variation entirely explicable by the vastness of heaven and the diversity of human interpretation.¹⁹

None of this requires us to compromise a single essential Christian doctrine. We do not have to lower our view of Scripture, abandon discernment about the occult, deny biblical teaching on the dead, dismiss our cessationist friends, or embrace universalism in order to take NDEs seriously. We can hold our biblical convictions with full strength and still recognize, as Sabom, Habermas, Moreland, Burke, Strobel, Sproul, Bright, and many others have recognized, that NDEs are a genuine phenomenon worth careful Christian study.²⁰

That is, in fact, the burden of the next chapter. If thoughtful Christians can answer these objections without sacrificing orthodoxy, what do respected evangelical scholars actually say when they engage NDE research seriously? As we will see in Chapter 33, their voices are more numerous, more credentialed, and more compelling than many critics realize.