Chapter 23

NDEs, Postmortem Opportunity, and the Question of Universalism

Introduction: The Most Sensitive Question

We have arrived at what may be the most theologically sensitive topic in this entire book. It touches on questions that have divided sincere Christians for centuries: Who is ultimately saved? Does God provide an opportunity for salvation after death? And does the overwhelming love that NDErs encounter on the other side mean that everyone will eventually end up in heaven?

These are not small questions. They cut to the heart of who God is, what the gospel means, and whether judgment is real. I want to approach this chapter with deep humility. Christians I love and respect land in very different places on these issues, and I do not pretend to have every answer wrapped up in a neat bow. But I do believe the evidence — both biblical and experiential — points us in a clear direction. And I believe the NDE data, when interpreted carefully and in light of Scripture, actually illuminates this question in a way that should give us both caution and hope.

Here is the thesis of this chapter: while NDEs do not teach universalism, they are consistent with the possibility of a postmortem opportunity for salvation — a view with significant biblical support — and the surprising prominence of Jesus in NDEs suggests that God is actively reaching people even at and beyond the threshold of death.

Let me be clear about what I am not saying. I am not saying that NDEs prove universalism. I am not saying that everyone will be saved regardless of their response to God. I am not saying that the gospel doesn't matter or that how we live this life is irrelevant. What I am saying is that the NDE evidence fits beautifully with a God who pursues people relentlessly — a God who does not give up on anyone before the final curtain falls.

The Data: What Are NDErs Actually Reporting?

Let's start with the raw data. Some NDErs return from their experience and make bold claims. They say things like, "Everyone goes to heaven." "There is no hell." "Religion doesn't matter — God loves everyone the same." "It doesn't matter what you believe — we all end up in the same place."

These kinds of statements have understandably alarmed many Christians. Critics of NDE research sometimes point to these claims as evidence that NDEs are promoting universalism — the idea that all people will eventually be saved, regardless of faith, repentance, or their response to Christ. If NDEs are truly from God, the argument goes, why would they teach something that contradicts the Bible?

It's a fair question. But it rests on a crucial assumption — that these universalistic claims are actually what the NDE itself taught. When we look more carefully at the evidence, a very different picture emerges.

J. Steve Miller conducted one of the most thorough examinations of this question in his landmark study of consecutively uploaded NDEs on the NDERF (Near-Death Experience Research Foundation) website. He challenged readers to go to the NDERF site and read one hundred consecutive NDE accounts. How many of them explicitly teach universalism? How many report being told that "everyone goes to heaven" or that "religion doesn't matter"?¹ The answer was striking. Out of one hundred consecutive cases, only seven mentioned something even vaguely opposed to Christian beliefs, and only three of those actually contradicted Christian doctrine.² Miller's conclusion was clear: the frequently heard claim that NDEs oppose Christianity and promote universalism does not hold up under careful scrutiny.³

Michael Sabom's Atlanta Study reinforced this finding from a different angle. Sabom specifically designed his study to test whether NDEs push people toward Eastern religions, universalism, or away from traditional Christianity. His results were the opposite of what many critics expected. Church attendance actually increased among NDErs — especially among conservative Christians. Of the four NDErs in his study who changed their religious affiliation, all four moved to a more conservative Christian position.⁴ Sabom concluded plainly that "a belief in reincarnation and in Eastern, universalist religion is not a direct aftereffect of the near-death experience."⁵

So where do the universalistic claims come from? And how should we evaluate them? I believe the answer requires a multi-layered analysis — one that distinguishes between what people experience and what they conclude, between the temporary nature of the NDE and the finality of the last judgment, and between God's genuine love and the assumption that love means the absence of all accountability.

Layer One: Experience Versus Interpretation

As we explored in detail in Chapter 26, one of the most important principles for evaluating any NDE is the distinction between the experience itself and the experiencer's theological interpretation of it. This distinction is critical to understanding why some NDErs come back sounding like universalists.

Here is what typically happens. A person has a cardiac arrest. They find themselves outside their body. They enter a realm of indescribable beauty and light. They encounter a Being — often identified as Jesus — who radiates a love so powerful, so overwhelming, so total, that nothing in their entire earthly life comes close to matching it. This Being knows everything about them — every sin, every failure, every selfish thought — and loves them completely anyway. The experience is, by every account, the most real and profound thing that has ever happened to them.

Then they come back. And they try to make sense of what happened.

The person who grew up in a harsh, legalistic church — who was taught that God is angry, demanding, and eager to punish — is overwhelmed by the contrast between what they experienced and what they were taught. "Everything I learned in church was wrong!" they might say. And from their limited vantage point, it makes sense. The God they experienced was nothing like the God they were taught to fear.

Another person, having experienced such total love and acceptance, reasons: "If God loves me like that — a sinner — then surely He loves everyone like that. And if He loves everyone like that, then everyone must go to heaven." The reasoning feels natural. But it is, in fact, a logical leap. The experience of overwhelming love is real. The conclusion that this love means universal salvation is the person's own theological inference — and it may be wrong.

Miller observed this pattern clearly. He noted that NDErs do not come back as trained theologians. They come back as people who have had a powerful experience and are trying to interpret it through whatever framework they already possess — or whatever framework they encounter afterward.⁶ Some find a support group that leans toward New Age or Eastern beliefs and naturally absorb those categories. Others find a solid biblical community and discover that their experience fits beautifully within a Christian framework. The NDE itself doesn't teach universalism. But the NDEr's interpretation of it sometimes does.

Miller made a related observation that is worth pausing over. He noted that from his study of hundreds of NDEs, he did not see people reporting that God, angels, or deceased relatives explicitly told them two specific things: (1) that they don't need Jesus, or (2) that they are guaranteed, no matter how they live or what they believe, to go to heaven after their final death and judgment.⁷ That is significant. The universalistic claims tend to come from the NDErs' own reasoning, not from direct communication during the experience itself.

Layer Two: NDEs Are Not the Final Destination

There is a second, equally important reason why we should not read universalism into NDE reports. NDErs are sent back. They are not experiencing their final eternal state. They are experiencing a temporary encounter — what Miller helpfully calls a visit to the "vestibule" of the afterlife — and then they return to earthly life.⁸

This is not a small detail. It changes everything about how we interpret the love they encounter.

Think of it this way. Imagine a child has been in a car accident and is being rushed to the hospital. The child temporarily dies on the operating table but is resuscitated. When the child opens his eyes, does the parent immediately lecture him about wearing his seatbelt? Of course not. The parent embraces the child with overwhelming love and relief. The conversation about seatbelts comes later — after the crisis is past.

NDEs are the moment of embrace — the reunion, the relief, the rush of love. The final judgment is a different event entirely. It has not happened yet. As we discussed in Chapter 19, the afterlife has a geography. There is Paradise — the blessed intermediate state — and there is Hades — the intermediate state of the unsaved. And then, at the end of all things, there is the final judgment. NDErs are visiting the intermediate realm. They are not standing before the great white throne of Revelation 20.

So when an NDEr experiences overwhelming love and concludes, "There is no judgment," they are drawing a conclusion that goes far beyond the data of their experience. They experienced love during a temporary visit. That tells us something beautiful about God's heart. But it does not tell us that judgment never comes.

As Chapter 22 explored at length, Jesus' loving demeanor toward NDErs — including those who are not Christians — is exactly what we should expect, given His character as revealed in the Gospels. Jesus was consistently loving and compassionate toward sinners during His earthly ministry. He was gentle with the woman at the well (John 4:7–26), tender with the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1–11), and warmly welcoming toward Zacchaeus the tax collector (Luke 19:1–10). None of this meant that judgment was off the table. It meant that Jesus was meeting them with love first — because love is who He is.

A Historical Note: Postmortem Opportunity in the Early Church

Before we turn to the biblical evidence for postmortem opportunity, it is worth noting that this idea is not a modern novelty. It has deep roots in the history of Christian theology — deeper than many Christians realize.

Several of the most respected church fathers held views that are at least compatible with postmortem opportunity. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–215), one of the earliest Christian theologians, taught that Christ's descent to the dead involved genuine preaching of the gospel to those in Hades — with the possibility of response and salvation. In his Stromata, Clement argued that the apostles who died before Christ continued the work of preaching in the afterlife, carrying the gospel to those who had never heard it during their earthly lives.³⁶

Origen of Alexandria (c. 185–254) went further, arguing for the ultimate restoration of all rational creatures — a view known as apokatastasis (ἀποκατάστασις). While Origen's universalism was later condemned at the Second Council of Constantinople in 553, his broader conviction that God's redemptive work extends beyond the grave was shared, in modified forms, by other respected fathers. Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335–395), one of the Cappadocian Fathers and a pillar of Nicene orthodoxy, also held a form of universal restoration — believing that God's purifying love would ultimately triumph over all resistance. Gregory was never condemned for this view, and he remains one of the most honored theologians in the Eastern Orthodox tradition.³⁷

The point here is not that the church fathers settled the question. They did not. But the existence of these voices within the first few centuries of Christianity — voices that were not marginal but central to the formation of orthodox theology — tells us that the idea of God's saving work extending beyond death is not a heretical innovation. It is a live question that the church has wrestled with from the very beginning.

I do not rest my case on the church fathers. I rest it on Scripture. But knowing that some of the same Christians who helped formulate the Nicene Creed and defend the deity of Christ also believed in some form of postmortem opportunity gives me confidence that this position is within the bounds of orthodox Christianity — even if not all Christians agree with it.

Layer Three: The Biblical Case for Postmortem Opportunity

Now we come to the heart of this chapter — and the heart of my own theological conviction on this matter. While I reject the claim that NDEs teach universalism, I believe the NDE data is profoundly consistent with the possibility of a postmortem opportunity for salvation. And I believe this possibility has significant biblical support.

Let me be precise about what I mean by "postmortem opportunity." I believe that God, in His relentless love and His commitment to justice, provides opportunity for people to respond to the gospel even after death — with the last chance to receive Christ being at or during the final judgment. This does not mean that everyone will be saved. It means that everyone will be given a genuine chance to respond. Those who reject God's offer — even after death, even face-to-face with His love — will ultimately cease to exist. This is the position known as conditional immortality with postmortem opportunity, and it is the view I have defended at length in my companion book, Beyond the Grave: A Biblical and Theological Case for Postmortem Salvation.

Some readers may find this view surprising. Many Christians have been taught that the moment of death is the absolute cutoff — that whatever you believe at the instant your heart stops beating determines your eternal destiny forever. But when we look carefully at what the Bible actually teaches, the picture is more nuanced — and more hopeful — than many of us have been led to believe.

Let me walk through the key texts.

1 Peter 3:18–20 — Christ Preaching to Spirits in Prison

The apostle Peter writes:

"For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed [ekēryxen, ἐκήρυξεν] to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being built." (1 Peter 3:18–20, ESV)

This is admittedly one of the most difficult passages in the New Testament. Scholars have debated its meaning for centuries. But several things are clear. First, Peter says that Christ, after being put to death in the flesh, went and "proclaimed" something to "spirits in prison." The word translated "proclaimed" is ekēryxen (ἐκήρυξεν), from the verb kēryssō (κηρύσσω), which means "to herald," "to proclaim," or "to preach." This is the same word used throughout the New Testament for the preaching of the gospel.

Second, these spirits are identified as those "who formerly did not obey" during the days of Noah. They are the disobedient dead — people who rejected God's patience during their earthly lives and are now in a state of imprisonment in the intermediate realm.

Third, the timing is significant: Christ went to them after His death on the cross and before His resurrection. During the triduum mortis — the three days between Good Friday and Easter Sunday — Christ's soul was active. He descended to the realm of the dead and preached to the disobedient spirits there.

John W. Cooper, in his careful analysis of this passage, notes that the interpretation of Christ preaching to disembodied human spirits in the intermediate state "is fully consistent with current Jewish eschatology in using pneuma to refer to the preresurrection dead."⁹ While Cooper acknowledges that this is "an extremely obscure passage" and that other interpretations exist — including the view that the spirits are fallen angels rather than human beings — he notes that the view favoring disembodied humans has significant scholarly support.¹⁰

The question, of course, is: why did Christ preach to these disobedient dead? If their fate was already sealed, what purpose would proclamation serve? The most natural reading — especially when combined with the next passage — is that Christ was offering them an opportunity to respond.

1 Peter 4:6 — The Gospel Preached to the Dead

Just a few verses later, Peter makes an even more striking statement:

"For this is why the gospel was preached even to those who are dead, that though judged in the flesh the way people are, they might live in the spirit the way God does." (1 Peter 4:6, ESV)

This verse is remarkably direct. The gospel — the euangelion (εὐαγγέλιον), the good news of salvation through Christ — was preached to "the dead" (nekrois, νεκροῖς). The purpose clause is equally revealing: "that they might live in the spirit the way God does." The preaching has a salvific purpose. It is intended to bring life.

Some interpreters try to soften this verse by arguing that "the dead" refers to people who heard the gospel while they were alive and have since died. But this reading is strained. Peter uses the past tense ("was preached") and applies it to those who are currently dead. The most straightforward reading is that the gospel was proclaimed to people who were already dead — in the intermediate state — with the goal of bringing them to spiritual life.¹¹

I want to pause and let that sink in. According to Peter, the gospel was preached to the dead. Not to the living. To the dead. And the purpose was not condemnation — it was life. Why would God preach the gospel to people who are already dead if there is no possibility of response? The most natural conclusion is that God offers opportunity even beyond the grave.

John 5:28–29 — All in the Tombs Will Hear His Voice

Jesus Himself makes a sweeping declaration in John's Gospel:

"Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment." (John 5:28–29, ESV)

Notice the scope: all who are in the tombs will hear Christ's voice. Not just believers. Not just those who heard the gospel during their lifetime. All. Every person who has ever died will hear the voice of the Son of God. This passage is typically understood as referring to the final resurrection — the moment when all the dead are raised for judgment. But the implication is significant: even in death, even in the tomb, the dead will encounter the voice of Christ.

When combined with 1 Peter 3:18–20 and 4:6, a picture begins to emerge: God's pursuit of the lost does not end at the moment of biological death. Christ goes to the dead. He preaches to them. He calls to them. His voice reaches even into the tombs.

Matthew 25:31–46 — The Judgment of the Nations

In His great discourse on the final judgment, Jesus describes the separation of the "sheep" from the "goats":

"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats." (Matthew 25:31–32, ESV)

What is striking about this passage is the basis of judgment. The "sheep" — those who inherit the kingdom — are identified not by their doctrinal statement or their religious affiliation but by their actions: feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and imprisoned. And they are surprised by the verdict. "Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?" (Matthew 25:37, ESV). They did not know they were serving Christ. They had no explicit understanding of the gospel. Yet their actions revealed a heart aligned with God's heart.

This does not teach that works save apart from grace. But it does suggest that the final judgment takes into account the total picture of a person's life — including factors that go beyond explicit knowledge of the Christian gospel. People who never heard a clear presentation of the gospel may still respond to the light they have been given. And if God judges justly and lovingly, we would expect Him to take this into account.

Miller's Argument: God's Commitment to Fairness

Miller makes a compelling observation in his discussion of these issues. He argues that if we truly must receive Jesus' forgiveness in order to be saved, then God's own justice and love would seem to commit Him to giving everyone a fair chance to hear and respond. Miller puts it this way: if people heard only distortions of the gospel in this lifetime, or never heard a clear presentation at all, perhaps Jesus would appear to them — whether in a deathbed vision or at the threshold of death — to give them the chance to respond.¹²

Miller strengthens this argument by pointing to two categories of people that most Christians already believe are saved without explicit knowledge of the gospel:

First, Old Testament saints. The apostle Paul teaches in Romans 4 that Abraham and other Old Testament believers were justified by faith — even though they lived and died centuries before Jesus was born, before the cross, and before the details of the atonement were revealed. They trusted in God's promise. They did not know the specifics of Christ's sacrifice. Yet Paul says they were saved through faith (Romans 4:1–25). At the transfiguration, Jesus appeared with Moses and Elijah — two Old Testament saints who seemed to be doing quite well on the other side, despite never having heard a sermon about the substitutionary atonement.¹³

Second, young children who die before the age of accountability. Most Christians believe that infants and very young children who die are received by God — even though they never understood the gospel, never made a conscious decision for Christ, and never professed faith. They are saved by grace, with the atonement of Christ applied to them on the basis of God's mercy rather than their conscious response.¹⁴

What do these two categories have in common? Neither had access to the gospel as we understand it. Yet both are widely believed to be saved. Miller's argument is straightforward: if God can save people who never heard the gospel — because they lived before Christ or because they died before they could understand — then perhaps the same principle extends to those who never heard a clear, undistorted presentation of the gospel during their earthly life. Perhaps God finds ways to reach them too.¹⁵

NDEs as Consistent with Postmortem Opportunity

Now we can bring together the biblical evidence and the NDE evidence and see how they fit.

If God provides opportunity for salvation even after death — if Christ goes to the dead and preaches to them — then what would we expect to see in NDE reports? We would expect to see exactly what we do see: a God of overwhelming love reaching out to people at and beyond the threshold of death, including people who are not yet Christians, including people of other religions, including people who never heard a clear presentation of the gospel.

And that is precisely what the NDE data shows. As we explored in Chapter 13, Jesus is the most frequently identified religious figure in NDE reports — appearing not only to Christians but to Hindus, Muslims, atheists, and people with no religious background at all.¹⁶ Miller's NDERF study found that eighteen percent of NDErs reported seeing Jesus — while sightings of other religious figures were vanishingly rare: only three reported seeing Krishna out of more than five thousand cases, and zero reported seeing Muhammad.¹⁷

Why would Jesus be appearing to non-Christians during their NDEs? If the moment of death is the absolute cutoff — if there is no opportunity for salvation after the heart stops — then these appearances seem puzzling, even cruel. Why would Jesus reveal Himself to people in love if there is no chance for them to respond?

But if postmortem opportunity is real — if God is actively reaching people at the boundary between life and death — then Jesus' presence in NDEs makes perfect sense. NDEs may be one of the ways God extends the invitation to people who have not yet responded to the gospel. The NDEr encounters Christ in love, is sent back to earthly life, and now has the rest of their life to respond to what they experienced. For many, this encounter becomes the catalyst for genuine conversion.

Consider the case of Howard Storm, whom we discussed in Chapter 21. Storm was a committed atheist — a university art professor who openly mocked religion. During a medical crisis in Paris, he had a deeply distressing NDE. He encountered malevolent beings who tore at him in the darkness. In his desperation, he cried out to Jesus — a name he had spent his adult life dismissing — and was rescued by a Being of brilliant light and overwhelming love. Storm's life was radically transformed. He left his academic career and became an ordained pastor.¹⁸

Storm did not know Christ before his NDE. He was not a believer. He was not even a seeker. Yet Christ met him at the threshold of death with both judgment (the distressing elements) and mercy (the rescue). Was this not a postmortem opportunity — a chance to respond to the gospel at the very boundary of death?

Or consider the many documented cases of people from non-Christian backgrounds — devout Muslims, Hindus, atheists — who encounter a Being of Light during their NDE and are profoundly drawn toward the Christian faith as a result.¹⁹ These are not people who arrived at the threshold of death as Christians. They encountered Christ there. And the encounter changed them.

As John Burke observed, we must be cautious about building theology around individual NDE stories. But the pattern is striking. NDEs consistently show us a God who pursues, who reaches out, who meets people where they are — even at and beyond the edge of death.²⁰ This is exactly what we would expect if postmortem opportunity is real.

God's Justice and the Problem of the Unevangelized

There is a question that haunts many thoughtful Christians, even if they rarely voice it out loud: What about the billions of people throughout history who never heard the gospel? What about the infant born in a remote village in 3000 BC, who lived and died without ever hearing the name of Jesus? What about the devout Buddhist grandmother in rural Cambodia, who lived a life of compassion and kindness but never encountered a single Christian missionary? What about the millions who lived and died in the Americas before European contact, who had no access whatsoever to the biblical revelation?

If salvation requires explicit faith in Jesus Christ — and I believe it does, ultimately — then God's justice demands that every person be given a genuine opportunity to hear and respond. A God who condemns people for failing to respond to a message they never received is not a just God. He is a tyrant. And the God of the Bible is no tyrant.

This is not a liberal sentiment. It is a deeply conservative one. It flows directly from the character of God as revealed in Scripture. God is just (tsaddiq, צַדִּיק — Deuteronomy 32:4). God is fair. God does not hold people accountable for what they never received. Abraham's great question rings through the centuries: "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?" (Genesis 18:25, ESV). The answer is yes — He shall. And doing what is just means giving every person a genuine chance.

The traditional view — that the moment of biological death is the absolute, final cutoff for everyone — creates a staggering problem. It means that the eternal destiny of billions of souls was determined not by their response to God's offer but by the accident of when and where they were born. A person born in first-century Jerusalem had access to the gospel; a person born in first-century China did not. If the cutoff is death, then the person in China was doomed before they drew their first breath — not because they rejected God, but because no missionary arrived in time. This strikes me as deeply incompatible with the justice and love of God as revealed in Scripture.³⁸

Various solutions have been proposed by evangelical theologians. Some argue for "inclusivism" — the view that people can be saved by responding to the general revelation available to all people (Romans 1:19–20; 2:14–16) without explicit knowledge of Christ. On this view, the Buddhist grandmother who responded faithfully to the light she was given may be saved through Christ's atonement without ever knowing His name. C. S. Lewis explored something like this view in his portrayal of the Calormene soldier Emeth in The Last Battle, who served the false god Tash but whose sincere seeking was accepted by Aslan.³⁹

Others argue for the "middle knowledge" view — that God, in His omniscience, knows how every person would have responded if they had heard the gospel, and judges them accordingly. On this view, no one who would have accepted the gospel if they had heard it is ultimately lost.

My own view — postmortem opportunity — takes a different approach. Rather than speculating about what people would have done, I believe God actually gives them the chance. He does not leave it to hypotheticals. He brings the gospel to them — whether through Christ's descent to the dead, through deathbed visions, through encounters at the threshold of death, or at the final judgment itself. God does not guess at what people would have done. He gives them the opportunity and lets them respond.

And this is where the NDE evidence becomes so powerful. Because NDEs show us exactly this: God reaching out to people who have not yet heard the gospel. Jesus appearing to atheists, to Muslims, to Hindus — not to condemn them, but to love them and draw them to Himself. If postmortem opportunity is real, NDEs are one of the places where we can see it in action.

Miller captures the logic beautifully. Jesus made it clear that those who continually seek will find (Matthew 7:7–8). If some in a remote place truly seek, God will bring enough truth to secure their salvation. Perhaps a missionary will come. Or perhaps God will provide a vision — a deathbed vision, a near-death encounter — when no missionary is available. The Bible does not state that this would never happen. And the NDE evidence suggests that it does happen, regularly.⁴⁰

There is an important connection here to the character of God as we encounter Him in NDEs. As Jeffrey Long's God Study documented, the Being encountered during NDEs radiates a love that is described as total, unconditional, and deeply personal — a love that knows everything about the person and accepts them completely.⁴¹ This is not the behavior of a God who has already written people off. This is the behavior of a God who is actively pursuing them — reaching out with love in order to draw them home. As we discussed in our companion book, The Heart of God, this emotional engagement on God's part is exactly what we would expect from a God who is genuinely passible — who truly feels love for His creatures and acts on that love.⁴²

The Objection from Romans 10:14

At this point, someone is sure to raise a very important objection: "But doesn't Paul teach in Romans 10:14 that no one can be saved without hearing the gospel preached? Doesn't this rule out postmortem opportunity?"

Let's look at the passage:

"How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?" (Romans 10:14, ESV)

Paul is describing the normal means of salvation — the ordinary process by which people come to faith. God sends preachers. Preachers proclaim the gospel. People hear. They believe. They call on the Lord. This is God's normative plan for spreading the gospel in this age. Missionary work, evangelism, and preaching are essential and must never be diminished.

But does this passage establish an absolute metaphysical impossibility? Does Paul mean that God cannot reach people by any other means — that human preachers are the only channel through which the gospel can ever flow?

I do not think so, for several reasons.

First, God Himself is not limited to human preachers. Consider the conversion of Saul of Tarsus. Paul — the very author of Romans 10:14 — did not come to faith through a human preacher. He was struck down on the Damascus Road by a blinding light and the voice of the risen Christ: "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?" (Acts 9:4, ESV). No missionary preached to Paul. No evangelist shared the gospel with him. Christ Himself appeared and spoke directly. If God can bypass human preachers for Saul of Tarsus, He can do so for others.

Second, as we noted above, the Bible already recognizes categories of people who are saved without hearing a standard gospel presentation — Old Testament saints and young children. Romans 10:14 describes the normative process, not an exhaustive one.

Third, the NDE evidence suggests that God is in fact reaching people directly. When Jesus appears to a non-Christian during an NDE and that person subsequently comes to faith, what has happened? The person has heard from Christ Himself. They have encountered the gospel — not through a human preacher, but through the Lord of the gospel. This is not a violation of Romans 10:14; it is a reminder that the God behind Romans 10:14 is not limited to a single method.

Other Biblical Passages Supporting God's Expansive Reach

The case for postmortem opportunity does not rest on just a few proof texts. It rests on the broader biblical portrait of God's character and purposes. Several additional passages are worth considering.

2 Peter 3:9 — God's Patience and Desire for All

"The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance." (2 Peter 3:9, ESV)

Peter tells us that God does not wish (boulomenos, βουλόμενος) for any to perish. He desires — actively, genuinely — that all people come to repentance. This is not a passive sentiment. It is a description of God's heart. A God who genuinely does not want anyone to perish would be expected to take every reasonable measure to reach people — including reaching them at and beyond the threshold of death.²¹

1 Timothy 2:3–4 — God's Desire for All to Be Saved

"This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." (1 Timothy 2:3–4, ESV)

God desires — thelei (θέλει), a word denoting active volition — all people to be saved. Not some. Not the elect only. All. If God genuinely desires the salvation of every human being, the question becomes: would such a God allow billions of people to be lost forever simply because they happened to be born in the wrong place, at the wrong time, in a culture where the gospel had not yet arrived? Or would He find ways — perhaps through deathbed visions, perhaps through encounters at the threshold of death — to give everyone a genuine opportunity to respond?

John 12:32 — Christ Drawing All People

"And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself." (John 12:32, ESV)

Jesus says He will draw (helkysō, ἑλκύσω) all people to Himself. The verb carries the sense of pulling, attracting, drawing with persuasive force. Christ's atoning work on the cross creates a gravitational pull — a drawing force — that reaches out to all people. The NDE data may be evidence of this drawing in action: Jesus reaching out to people at the moment of death, pulling them toward Himself with the irresistible force of His love.

Ephesians 4:8–10 — Christ's Descent

"Therefore it says, 'When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men.' (In saying, 'He ascended,' what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower regions, the earth? He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.)" (Ephesians 4:8–10, ESV)

Paul speaks of Christ descending into "the lower regions" — a phrase that many interpreters understand as a reference to the realm of the dead. Christ descended. He went to the dead. He "led a host of captives" — liberating those held in the grip of death. This passage, read in conjunction with 1 Peter 3:18–20, reinforces the picture of a Christ who actively engages with the dead in the intermediate state.²²

Distressing NDEs: Evidence Against Universal Salvation

If NDEs taught universalism, we would expect every NDE to be positive. But they are not. As we explored in Chapter 21, a significant percentage of NDEs — estimates range from fifteen to twenty-five percent — are distressing. NDErs report encounters with darkness, isolation, terrifying beings, and various forms of torment.²³

The existence of distressing NDEs is powerful evidence against universalism. If "everyone goes to heaven," why do some people encounter darkness and terror at the threshold of death? The distressing NDE data tells us that the afterlife is not uniformly pleasant. There are "both glorious and distressing places" on the other side, as Miller observes.²⁴ This is precisely what the Bible teaches about the intermediate state: Paradise for the righteous dead, and Hades for the unrighteous (Luke 16:19–31).

Barbara Rommer, in her study of distressing NDEs, found that many who experienced them were people who needed a "wake-up call" — people whose lives were heading in a destructive direction. The distressing experience often provoked radical repentance and life change.²⁵ Nancy Evans Bush documented that the most common response to a distressing NDE is what she calls "the conversion response" — a dramatic change in beliefs and behavior, frequently toward a conservative religious community.²⁶ Social worker Kimberly Clark Sharp observed that among people she knew who had negative NDEs, they commonly became Bible-based Christians.²⁷

This pattern is profoundly significant. Distressing NDEs do not function as final condemnation. They function as warnings — invitations to repent while there is still time. This fits perfectly with the postmortem opportunity framework. God is not done with anyone yet. Even those who encounter the distressing side of the afterlife are given the chance to respond — to cry out, as Howard Storm did, and be rescued.

My Position: Conditional Immortality with Postmortem Opportunity

Let me now state my own position clearly, with full awareness that sincere Christians disagree.

My primary position is what I call conditional immortality with postmortem opportunity. This view holds several interconnected beliefs:

First, salvation is through Jesus Christ alone. There is no other name under heaven by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12). The cross of Christ is the only basis for the forgiveness of sins. This is non-negotiable.

Second, God provides genuine opportunity for every person to respond to the gospel — in this life or after it. For those who hear a clear gospel presentation during their earthly life, the opportunity is now. For those who never heard — or who heard only distorted versions — God is not unjust. He will find ways to reach them, perhaps through deathbed visions, perhaps through encounters in the intermediate state, perhaps at the final judgment itself.

Third, the last chance to receive Christ is at or during the final judgment. The great white throne judgment of Revelation 20 is not merely a sentencing hearing. It is the final confrontation between every human soul and the living God. Everyone will stand before Christ. Everyone will hear His voice (John 5:28–29). Everyone will have the opportunity to respond — to bow the knee willingly or to harden the heart one final time.

Fourth, immortality is not inherent to the human soul — it is a gift from God (conditional immortality). The soul is real. It survives bodily death. It is conscious in the intermediate state. But it is sustained in existence by God's power, not by its own nature. Those who ultimately and finally reject God — even after being given every opportunity — are not sustained forever in torment. They cease to exist. This is the view known as annihilationism or conditionalism, and I believe it is more consistent with the biblical portrait of God's justice than the traditional view of eternal conscious torment.²⁸

Fifth, I remain open to conservative biblical universalism — the view that God's love and Christ's atonement will ultimately triumph over every human heart, and that all people will eventually be saved. I have not committed to this view, but I take it seriously as a possible biblical option. The passages that speak of God's desire for all to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9), Christ drawing all people to Himself (John 12:32), and the cosmic scope of Christ's reconciling work (Colossians 1:19–20) are weighty. The question is whether "all" truly means "all" in these contexts — or whether some will resist to the very end.²⁹

I do not know the final answer to this question. It is one of my current areas of study. What I do know is this: the NDE evidence shows us a God who pursues people with a love that is staggering in its intensity and relentless in its reach. Whether that love ultimately conquers every heart, or whether some hearts remain hardened to the end, I cannot say with certainty. But I can say this with confidence: God's love is far wider, far deeper, and far more aggressive than most of us have been taught to imagine.

Addressing the Objections

This position naturally invites objections. Let me address several of the most common ones.

Objection 1: "Hebrews 9:27 teaches that death is the final cutoff."

"And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment." (Hebrews 9:27, ESV)

This verse is perhaps the most frequently cited objection to postmortem opportunity. But look carefully at what it actually says. It says that after death comes judgment. It does not say that there is no opportunity between death and judgment. It does not say that judgment is instantaneous at the moment of death. It does not say that the intermediate state is a sealed fate. It says that death is followed by judgment — which is exactly what the postmortem opportunity view affirms. God will judge. But between death and final judgment, there is an intermediate state. And in that intermediate state, Christ has been active — preaching to the dead (1 Peter 3:18–20; 4:6).

Moreover, as we discussed in Chapter 24, the word hapax (ἅπαξ) — "once" — in Hebrews 9:27 is directed against reincarnation (the idea of dying multiple times), not against postmortem opportunity. You die once. You face judgment once. But between death and judgment, the intermediate state exists — and it is a state where Christ is actively present.

Objection 2: "Luke 16:19–31 teaches that the fate of the dead is fixed."

In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Abraham tells the rich man in Hades that "between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us" (Luke 16:26, ESV). Doesn't this prove that the intermediate state is a sealed fate?

Several points are important here. First, this is a parable — a story designed to teach a moral lesson, not a detailed map of the afterlife's geography. Parables use literary elements to make a point. The point of this parable is the urgency of responding to God's word while you have the chance (Luke 16:29–31). It does not follow that every detail of the parable constitutes a literal description of the afterlife's mechanics.

Second, even taken at face value, the "great chasm" separates the locations of Paradise and Hades in the intermediate state. It says nothing about whether Christ Himself can cross that chasm — and 1 Peter 3:18–20 suggests that He did exactly that.

Third, the parable is set in the intermediate state, before the final judgment. Even if the intermediate state involves a fixed separation between the righteous and the unrighteous, this does not preclude a final opportunity at the judgment itself.³⁰

Objection 3: "If people can be saved after death, evangelism doesn't matter."

This is a pastoral concern, not an exegetical one — but it deserves a serious response. The fear is that if people can be saved after death, Christians will lose their motivation to share the gospel now. Why bother with evangelism if God will take care of it later?

Several responses are in order. First, the urgency of evangelism does not depend on the impossibility of postmortem salvation. It depends on the goodness of the gospel and the need of the world. Even if God provides opportunity after death, the billions of people alive right now are suffering, lost, confused, and in desperate need of the hope and healing that the gospel provides today. Evangelism is not just about saving people from hell — it is about bringing them into the fullness of life with God now.

Second, postmortem opportunity does not mean postmortem guarantee. Even if God offers the gospel after death, people can still reject it. The risk is real. The stakes are high. Every day that a person lives without Christ is a day of unnecessary suffering and separation from God's best. The urgency remains.

Third, the same objection could be raised against the belief that God saves infants who die. If infants go to heaven automatically, shouldn't we stop doing medicine and let more infants die? Of course not. The question answers itself. The fact that God may save people who never heard the gospel does not reduce our obligation to share it.³¹

Objection 4: "NDEs are too diverse to support any single theology."

Some critics argue that NDEs are so varied — some blissful, some terrifying, some Christian, some not — that they cannot coherently support any single theological view. But this objection actually misses the point. We are not building a theology from NDEs. We are observing that the NDE data is consistent with a theology built on Scripture. The diversity of NDEs is not a problem for the postmortem opportunity view — it is expected. People are at different points in their spiritual journey. They encounter different aspects of the intermediate state. They are given different kinds of experiences — some comforting, some confronting — depending on what they need. As Miller observes, God gives people the experiences they need to accomplish His purposes in their lives.³²

Postmortem Opportunity and Substance Dualism: Why the Soul Matters

This is a good place to pause and connect the question of postmortem opportunity to one of the central arguments of this entire book: substance dualism. The question of whether God can reach people after death is inseparable from the question of whether persons exist after death — whether the soul survives the death of the body and remains conscious, aware, and capable of response.

If physicalism is true — if human beings are nothing more than their physical bodies, with no immaterial soul that survives death — then postmortem opportunity is a non-starter. There is no "person" after death to receive the gospel. The body decays. The brain ceases to function. Consciousness evaporates. There is nothing left for God to reach.

But if substance dualism is true — if the soul is a genuine, immaterial substance that can exist and function apart from the body — then the picture changes completely. After death, the person still exists. The soul is conscious. It can think, perceive, respond, and choose. It can hear the voice of Christ (John 5:28–29). It can receive the gospel that is preached to the dead (1 Peter 4:6). The intermediate state is not a blank void — it is a real condition in which real persons exist and real encounters with God are possible.

As we established in Chapter 5, the biblical case for substance dualism is strong. And as we demonstrated in Chapters 6 through 10, the NDE evidence — especially veridical NDEs in which patients accurately report information they could not have known through normal sensory channels — provides powerful empirical confirmation that consciousness can function independently of the brain. The soul is real. It survives death. It is conscious in the intermediate state.

This has a direct implication for the postmortem opportunity question. If the soul survives and is conscious, then God has access to the person after death. He can speak to them. He can reveal Himself to them. He can offer them the gospel. And they can respond — freely, genuinely, without coercion. As Joshua Farris notes in his treatment of the intermediate state, the common Reformed view affirms "a literal persistence of persons or souls" between death and resurrection, with genuine personal functioning and even the experience of union with God during the disembodied state.⁴³ If this is the case — if the soul persists and functions — then there is no metaphysical barrier to postmortem opportunity. The soul is there. God is there. The conversation can happen.

This is one of the reasons why the conditional immortality movement's embrace of physicalism is so problematic, as I discuss in greater detail in Chapter 36. Many conditionalists have adopted physicalism about human nature — the view that there is no immaterial soul, that the person simply ceases to exist at death and is re-created at the resurrection. But if this is true, then postmortem opportunity becomes incoherent. There is no one to preach to between death and resurrection. The "spirits in prison" of 1 Peter 3:19 do not exist. The "dead" to whom the gospel was preached in 1 Peter 4:6 are nonexistent.

My position — conditional immortality combined with substance dualism and postmortem opportunity — avoids this problem entirely. The soul is real. It survives death. It is conscious in the intermediate state. But it is conditionally immortal — sustained in existence by God's power, not by its own inherent nature. God sustains the souls of the saved in His presence (Paradise). And He sustains the souls of the unsaved long enough for them to hear the gospel, respond to His offer, and either accept or reject. Those who ultimately reject — even after every opportunity has been exhausted — are not sustained forever. They cease to exist. This is conditional immortality in its fullest and most humane form: not the premature extinction of persons who never had a chance, but the final, merciful end of those who have freely and finally refused the God who pursued them to the very last.⁴⁴

What NDEs Do Not Prove

I want to be very clear about the limits of what NDEs can tell us about this question.

NDEs do not prove universalism. The love that NDErs encounter is real. But love and judgment are not contradictions. A loving God can also be a just God. A God who pursues people relentlessly can also allow them, in the end, to refuse His offer. NDEs show us the pursuing love of God. They do not show us the final outcome for every soul.

NDEs do not prove that everyone will ultimately accept God's offer. They show us that God is reaching out. But free will is real. Some may say no — even face-to-face with perfect love. The possibility of final rejection is sobering. It is the shadow that hangs over even the most hopeful theology of the afterlife.

NDEs do not replace Scripture. They confirm many of Scripture's central teachings — the reality of God, the existence of the afterlife, the priority of love, the presence of Christ, the existence of both heavenly and hellish realities. But they are testimony, not revelation. They give us glimpses, not the full picture. The Bible remains the authoritative guide for Christian faith and practice.³³

NDEs do not eliminate the urgency of sharing the gospel. Even if God provides postmortem opportunity, the world needs the gospel now. People are hurting now. Lives are being wasted now. The gospel transforms lives in the present — not just in the future. Every day without Christ is a day of unnecessary loss.

The Surprising Convergence

What strikes me most about this question is the way the biblical evidence and the NDE evidence converge from entirely different directions — and arrive at the same place.

The Bible tells us that God does not wish any to perish (2 Peter 3:9). NDEs show us a God who radiates love even toward those who do not yet know Him.

The Bible tells us that Christ descended to the dead and preached to spirits in prison (1 Peter 3:18–20). NDEs show us encounters with Christ at and beyond the threshold of death.

The Bible tells us that the gospel was preached even to the dead (1 Peter 4:6). NDEs show us people who encountered the gospel for the first time during their NDE — and were transformed by it.

The Bible tells us that all who are in the tombs will hear Christ's voice (John 5:28–29). NDEs show us that the dead do hear — they hear, they see, they encounter the living God.

The Bible warns that some will face distressing judgment (Matthew 25:41–46). NDEs include distressing experiences that function as warnings and invitations to repent.

These two independent lines of evidence — the ancient witness of Scripture and the modern data of NDE research — were not designed to confirm each other. The biblical writers knew nothing of modern resuscitation technology. NDE researchers were not trying to prove biblical theology. Yet they point in the same direction: toward a God whose love is relentless, whose pursuit of the lost is tireless, and whose justice includes giving everyone a genuine chance to respond.³⁴

The Connection to the Author's Earlier Work

I have argued this case at much greater length in my companion book, Beyond the Grave: A Biblical and Theological Case for Postmortem Salvation. That book examines every major passage related to postmortem opportunity, engages the full range of scholarly opinion, and presents a comprehensive defense of the view that God's offer of salvation extends beyond the moment of biological death. Readers who want a more thorough treatment of the exegetical and theological arguments are encouraged to consult that volume.

The present chapter has focused specifically on how the NDE evidence intersects with the question of postmortem opportunity. My goal has been to show that the NDE data — far from promoting universalism, as critics allege — actually fits beautifully within a framework that takes both God's love and God's justice seriously. NDEs show us a God who pursues, who reaches out, who meets people at the boundary of death with overwhelming love. But they also show us a God who allows distressing experiences, who takes sin seriously, and who does not force Himself on anyone. Love and accountability coexist in the NDE data — just as they coexist in Scripture.

Conclusion: A God Who Refuses to Give Up

We have covered difficult ground in this chapter. The question of universalism touches on some of the deepest and most painful questions in all of Christian theology: Is anyone ultimately lost? Does God give up on anyone? What happens to the billions who never heard?

I do not have all the answers. But I have arrived at a place of deep conviction on several points.

First, NDEs do not teach universalism. The claim that they do is not supported by the data. Most NDEs are neutral toward or compatible with mainstream Christian teaching. The universalistic conclusions that some NDErs draw are the product of their own theological reasoning — not the content of the experience itself.

Second, NDEs are profoundly consistent with the biblical teaching on postmortem opportunity. The prominence of Jesus in NDEs — reaching out even to non-Christians with love — is exactly what we would expect from a God who preaches to the dead (1 Peter 4:6), who desires all to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4), and who will one day cause every person in the tombs to hear His voice (John 5:28–29).

Third, the NDE data should make us more hopeful — not more complacent. The picture that emerges from both the Bible and the NDE evidence is of a God who is far more loving, far more persistent, and far more creative in His pursuit of the lost than most of us have dared to imagine. This should not make us lazy about evangelism. It should make us more confident in the character of the God we serve — a God who refuses to let anyone go without a fight.

Fourth, the existence of distressing NDEs reminds us that love does not mean the absence of accountability. God is love — but God is also just. Some will encounter the distressing side of the afterlife. Some may, in the end, reject God's offer entirely. The possibility of final loss is real. But the possibility of unexpected rescue — even at the last moment, even beyond the grave — is also real. And that is very, very good news.

I want to close with a thought that I believe captures the spirit of everything we have discussed. The God of the Bible is a God who leaves the ninety-nine sheep to search for the one that is lost (Luke 15:4). He lights a lamp and sweeps the house to find the one lost coin (Luke 15:8). He stands at the end of the road, watching and waiting for the prodigal son to come home — and when the son appears on the horizon, He runs to meet him (Luke 15:20). This is a God who does not give up easily. This is a God who pursues. And the NDE evidence suggests that His pursuit does not end at the grave.

Whether that pursuit ultimately succeeds with every soul — whether love conquers every heart, or some resist to the very end — I cannot say with certainty. But I can say this: the God who meets people at the threshold of death with such overwhelming, staggering, transformative love is a God worth trusting with the outcome. He knows what He is doing. And He is very, very good.³⁵