Chapter 31

"All NDEs Are Demonic!"

Why Wholesale Dismissal of NDEs Fails

"For anyone who truly believes the biblical record, it is impossible to resist the conclusion that these modern testimonies...are simply untrue. They are either figments of the human imagination...or else they are products of demonic deception."

— John MacArthur, The Glory of Heaven¹

Introduction: A Dangerous Overcorrection

Some of the most respected voices in the evangelical world have looked at near-death experiences and delivered a sweeping verdict: all NDEs are either demonic deceptions or products of the human imagination. Not some. Not many. All of them.

I understand the impulse behind this reaction. I really do. When you love the Bible and you see bestselling books claiming to describe heaven in ways that contradict Scripture, alarm bells go off. And they should. The Christian instinct to protect biblical truth from distortion is a good and necessary instinct. The apostle Paul himself warned the Galatians: "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:8, ESV). We should take false teaching seriously.

But here's my concern. In their zeal to protect the flock from bad theology, some Christian leaders have swung so far in the opposite direction that they have created a different kind of problem. They have taken a position that is exegetically unfounded, pastorally harmful, and flatly contradicted by the best available research evidence. By declaring that every NDE without exception is either fake or demonic, they have painted themselves into a corner that the Bible does not require — and that the evidence simply does not support.

This chapter is one of the most important in this book. It is not an attack on the critics. I respect John MacArthur, Hank Hanegraaff, and others who have raised these concerns. They are motivated by genuine love for biblical truth. But as theologian Robertson McQuilkin often said, "It's easier to go to a consistent extreme than to stay in the center of biblical tension."² The wholesale dismissal of all NDEs is such an extreme. And I believe it does more harm than good — both to the church's witness and to the real people whose real experiences are being dismissed without investigation.

In this chapter, we will examine the major arguments put forward by Christian critics of NDEs and respond to each one carefully and thoroughly. My goal is not to prove that every NDE is genuine or that every element of every NDE is from God. We've already seen in Chapters 25–29 that careful discernment is essential. Rather, my goal is to show that the blanket dismissal of all NDEs fails — exegetically, evidentially, logically, and pastorally.

Meet the Critics: MacArthur and Hanegraaff

Before responding to the critics, we need to understand their arguments fairly. I believe in steel-manning the opposition — presenting their best case before responding. This is not only good scholarship; it is the kind of intellectual charity that honors Christ.

The two most influential evangelical critics of NDEs have been John MacArthur and Hank Hanegraaff. Let me present their positions as clearly and charitably as I can.

MacArthur, pastor of Grace Community Church and a widely respected Bible teacher, has addressed NDEs most directly in his book The Glory of Heaven. His position can be summarized in several key claims. First, NDEs are "simply untrue" — they are either hallucinations or demonic deceptions. Second, the Bible tells us everything we need to know about heaven, and we should not look to human experiences for additional information. Third, popular NDE books spread false theology that contradicts Scripture. And fourth, passages like Proverbs 30:4 and John 3:13 prove that no one ascends to heaven and returns.³

Hanegraaff, known as "The Bible Answer Man," has expressed similar concerns, warning that NDEs promote New Age theology and draw people away from biblical Christianity. His concern centers on the theological content of popular NDE accounts — accounts that sometimes include reincarnation, universalism, or the denial of Christ's uniqueness.⁴

Other critics have joined this chorus. Catholic theologian Hans Küng, pastor Michael Marsh, and philosopher John Haldane have all argued against the legitimacy of NDEs in various ways.⁵

Now, I want to say something important before we go further. These critics are not stupid people. They are not mean-spirited people. They have raised genuine concerns that deserve honest engagement. The question is whether their conclusions — specifically, the wholesale dismissal of all NDEs — are warranted by the evidence and by Scripture.

I believe they are not. Let me explain why.

Argument One: "NDEs Are Not in the Bible"

This is perhaps the most common objection, and at first glance it seems powerful. If NDEs aren't in the Bible, why should we believe in them?

But this argument has a fatal flaw. It proves too much. Many real phenomena are not described in the Bible. Modern medical resuscitation is not in the Bible. Antibiotics are not in the Bible. The technology that allows a person whose heart has stopped to be shocked back to life with a defibrillator — that's not in the Bible either. The Bible describes people being raised from the dead (Elijah raising the widow's son in 1 Kings 17, Jesus raising Lazarus in John 11, the resurrection appearances). But it does not describe the subjective experience of those who were dead. What did Lazarus see during those four days in the tomb? Scripture is silent. That silence is not the same as a denial.

As we explored in Chapter 30, the Bible is actually filled with precedents for the kinds of experiences NDErs report. Paul was "caught up to the third heaven" — whether in the body or out of the body, he did not know — and heard "things that cannot be told, which man may not utter" (2 Corinthians 12:2–4, ESV). Stephen, at the moment of his death, "gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God" (Acts 7:55, ESV). Isaiah saw "the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up" (Isaiah 6:1, ESV). Ezekiel had elaborate visions of God's glory. John on Patmos saw heaven opened and recorded what he saw in the book of Revelation. These are not identical to modern NDEs, but they establish a clear biblical pattern: God grants visions of the heavenly realm to human beings, sometimes at or near the point of death.

Moreover, Miller makes a pointed observation about MacArthur's own use of extra-biblical knowledge. In his sermons on Genesis and creation, MacArthur regularly cites scientific research about the complexity and diversity of the natural world — quoting physicists, university sources, and the U.S. Natural Museum to illustrate the wonders of God's creation. Miller asks: if it is appropriate to use scientific knowledge of the physical world to enrich our understanding of the doctrine of creation, why is it suddenly off-limits to examine what scientific studies are showing us about people's experiences at the time of death?⁶

MacArthur appeals to the sufficiency of Scripture, arguing that God has told us all we need to know about heaven. But the doctrine of Scripture's sufficiency — which I affirm — means that the Bible contains everything necessary for salvation and godly living (2 Timothy 3:16–17). It does not mean that the Bible exhausts all knowledge on every topic. Romans 1:20 tells us that God's "invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made" (ESV). Psalm 19:1 declares: "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork" (ESV). Theologians call this "general revelation" — knowledge of God available through creation, conscience, and experience. NDEs, if genuine, fall within this category. They do not add to Scripture's doctrinal authority. They testify to truths that Scripture has already revealed — God's reality, the afterlife, the importance of love, the centrality of Jesus. They are testimony, not new revelation. We will address the sufficiency argument more thoroughly in Chapter 32.

So the claim that NDEs "are not in the Bible" fails on two counts: the Bible does contain extensive precedent for visions and afterlife encounters (Chapter 30), and the absence of a specific modern phenomenon from an ancient text does not invalidate that phenomenon.

Argument Two: "NDEs Are Hallucinations"

This objection crosses the boundary between Christian and secular criticism. Some critics dismiss NDEs as the random firings of a dying brain — oxygen deprivation, DMT release, temporal lobe seizures, or some other neurological event. MacArthur seems to allow for this option when he says NDEs are "figments of the human imagination."

I dealt with this objection extensively in Part II of this book, and we treat it comprehensively in Appendix B. But let me summarize the key points here, because they are critical for understanding why the wholesale dismissal fails.

As we saw in Chapter 6, veridical NDEs — cases where the experiencer reported specific, verified information that they had no normal way of knowing — are the game-changer. These are not vague feelings or fuzzy memories. These are cases where cardiac arrest patients accurately described events happening in other rooms, conversations taking place down the hall, and specific details of their own resuscitation procedures — all while their brains were clinically non-functional.

As we explored in Chapter 7, Pam Reynolds underwent a standstill operation in which her body was cooled, her heart stopped, and the blood was drained from her brain. Her brain was producing zero electrical activity. And yet she reported accurate observations of surgical instruments and conversations during this period. As we saw in Chapter 8, Kenneth Ring documented congenitally blind people who "saw" for the first time during their NDEs — and accurately described visual details of their surroundings. Hallucinations do not produce verified information about events in other rooms. Hallucinations do not give blind people sight. Whatever NDEs are, the hallucination hypothesis is flatly inadequate to explain the best cases.

Now, this does not mean that every reported NDE is genuine. Some may indeed be caused by neurological processes. Some may be embellished or misremembered. But the blanket claim that all NDEs are hallucinations fails in the face of veridical cases that no hallucination model can account for. And Christian critics who have adopted this position have, by and large, not engaged with the veridical evidence at all. As Miller observes, MacArthur and Hanegraaff were responding primarily to popular "heaven tourism" books — not to the peer-reviewed medical research of van Lommel, Sabom, Greyson, Long, and Parnia.⁷ The two bodies of evidence are very different.

Argument Three: "All NDEs Are Demonic"

This is, in many ways, the most important argument to address — and the one that gives this chapter its title. The claim is straightforward: every NDE, without exception, is a demonic deception designed to lead people away from biblical truth.

I want to be clear about something at the outset. I absolutely believe that demonic deception is real. As we explored in Chapter 25, the Bible teaches that "Satan disguises himself as an angel of light" (2 Corinthians 11:14, ESV), and we have good reason to believe that some elements of some NDEs may involve demonic interference. The question is not whether demons can deceive. The question is whether it makes sense — biblically, logically, or evidentially — to claim that every single NDE is demonic.

I believe this claim fails spectacularly, and for a very simple reason: it fails Jesus' own test.

The Fruit Test

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus gave us a powerful tool for discernment:

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit." (Matthew 7:15–18, ESV)

Jesus is crystal clear. Good trees produce good fruit. Bad trees produce bad fruit. A bad tree cannot produce good fruit. This is the test. So what fruit do NDEs produce?

The answer, documented in study after study, is overwhelmingly positive — and specifically, the fruit is Christlike.

Cardiologist Michael Sabom, a committed Christian and elder in the Presbyterian Church in America, conducted the Atlanta Study — one of the most careful research projects ever done on NDE aftereffects. His findings are devastating to the "all demonic" claim. Sabom found that his NDE patients consistently moved toward deeper faith, not away from it. An NDE "appears to significantly bolster one's intrinsic faith, meaning in life, capacity for love, and involvement in family." NDEs led to a strengthened belief in God, belief in life after death, increased desire to pray, deeper concern for others, and decreased emphasis on material things.⁸

But here's the finding that is most damaging to the "all demonic" thesis. Did NDErs drift toward liberal or New Age theology? Sabom looked specifically at this question. Of the four NDErs in his study who made changes in their Christian belief system, all four changed "to a more conservative Christian doctrine." Not one drifted toward New Age belief or liberal theology.⁹ Sabom concluded that "a belief in reincarnation and in Eastern, universalist religion is not a direct aftereffect of near-death experience."¹⁰

Dr. Penny Sartori's research in a UK hospital confirmed the same pattern. Her NDE patients reported "an increased tendency to pray, go to church, and read the Bible."¹¹ More prayer. More Bible reading. More church attendance. These are the aftereffects of a demonic deception?

Miller drives this point home with characteristic wit. If NDEs are a Satanic strategy, it appears to have either backfired or been an appallingly misguided venture from the start. Imagine the strategy session:

"Satan to demons: 'When people come near death, let's give them a deluding vision which causes them to connect more closely with their churches, love God more dearly, pray more regularly and love people more fervently.' Demons, in unison: 'Do what?'"¹²

Now, I can hear a possible objection. Could this be a long-range strategy — demons giving positive experiences now to build trust, then introducing lies later? It's a clever suggestion, but it runs headlong into Jesus' own teaching. "A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit" (Matthew 7:18). Jesus doesn't say "bad trees usually bear bad fruit." He says they cannot bear good fruit. If we take Jesus' fruit test seriously, then the consistent production of Christlike fruit from NDEs is strong evidence that the source is not demonic.

Could an individual NDE have some demonic elements? Absolutely. As we saw in Chapter 25, Satan's strategy is to take what God intends for good and twist it — just enough to deceive, not so much that the deception is obvious. Some NDEs may contain a mix of genuine and deceptive elements. But that's a call for discernment, not wholesale dismissal. The existence of counterfeit currency does not mean that all currency is counterfeit.

Sabom's Study — and the Silence of the Critics

Here's something that bothers me about the "all demonic" position. If critics are familiar with Sabom's or Sartori's studies and think they are somehow flawed, they should tell us why we shouldn't accept their conclusions. But as Miller observes, the critics have generally been silent about this research. They have not engaged with the Atlanta Study. They have not addressed the veridical evidence. They have not explained how a demonic deception consistently produces increased prayer, Bible reading, conservative Christian faith, and Christlike character.¹³

Miller is right. If critics want to claim that all NDEs are demonic, the burden of proof is on them to explain the fruit. And so far, they haven't.

Sabom himself testifies that his study of NDEs deepened his own walk with the Lord. "My walk with the Lord has deepened, and I have benefited from the teaching and encouragement of several Christian leaders in the Atlanta area. In 1993 I joined the Presbyterian Church of America — a conservative Christian denomination — and was ordained an elder shortly before writing this book."¹⁴ Here is a man whose engagement with NDE research led him not to New Age mysticism, not to liberal theology, not to the rejection of Christ — but to a deeper, more conservative, more committed Christian faith. If this is the fruit of studying NDEs, it is very good fruit indeed.

Additional Evidence Against the "All Demonic" Claim

Let me press this point further, because it is so important. The "all demonic" claim doesn't just fail the fruit test in general — it fails it in very specific ways that should give any thoughtful Christian serious pause.

Consider the prominence of Jesus in NDEs. As we explored in detail in Chapter 13, Miller conducted a systematic study of consecutively uploaded NDEs on the NDERF website and found that Jesus appears with striking frequency — far more than any other religious figure. In these encounters, Jesus consistently displays the same character we see in the Gospels: overwhelming love, personal tenderness, deep knowledge of the experiencer, and moral seriousness. He does not appear as a vague, generic "being of light." He is recognized as Jesus. He communicates love. He prompts repentance. He draws people toward faith.³⁸

Now think about that for a moment. If Satan is behind all NDEs, then Satan is consistently presenting Jesus — the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity — as a being of overwhelming love, holiness, and authority. Satan is drawing people toward the very person he hates most. This makes no strategic sense whatsoever. Jesus Himself addressed this exact logic when the Pharisees accused Him of casting out demons by the power of Beelzebul:

"Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand. And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand?" (Matthew 12:25–26, ESV)

If Satan is sending people to encounter Jesus — if he is using NDEs to increase prayer, Bible reading, church attendance, and conservative Christian faith — then Satan is fighting against his own kingdom. Jesus said this is impossible. A house divided against itself cannot stand.

Consider also the life review, which we examined in Chapter 15. During the life review, NDErs relive every moment of their lives and experience how their actions affected others. They feel the pain they caused. They see the consequences of their selfishness. They come back with a profound new commitment to love, kindness, and moral seriousness. This aligns perfectly with the biblical teaching that we will each give an account for our lives (Romans 14:12; 2 Corinthians 5:10). Is the devil really behind experiences that make people more morally serious, more compassionate, and more aware of their accountability before God? That would be a remarkably counterproductive strategy for the enemy of our souls.

Or consider the NDErs who lose their fear of death — not because they become careless about sin, but because they have encountered the living God and know that He is real and that death is not the end. This is consistent with what the author of Hebrews describes: Jesus came to "deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery" (Hebrews 2:15, ESV). Freedom from the fear of death is not a demonic gift. It is a gospel gift.

NDE researcher Bruce Greyson, after decades of studying NDEs at the University of Virginia, observed that more than half of NDErs reported that after death, we review our lives and judge ourselves and face consequences for what we did in life.⁴⁴ This is not a "feel-good, anything-goes" message. This is moral accountability — which is precisely what the Bible teaches.

Billy Graham's Grandmother and the Case-by-Case Approach

Let me share one more example that illustrates why the wholesale dismissal fails. Respected evangelist Billy Graham reported that his grandmother had a deathbed experience shortly before she died. According to Graham: "The room seemed to fill with a heavenly light. She sat up in bed and almost laughingly said, 'I see Jesus. He has His arms outstretched toward me. I see Ben [her husband who had died some years earlier] and I see angels.' She slumped over, absent from the body but present with the Lord."⁴⁶

What do we do with a case like this? There is nothing in this account that contradicts Christian theology. A dying believer sees Jesus — consistent with Stephen's vision in Acts 7:55–56. She sees her deceased husband — consistent with the biblical expectation that we will be reunited with believers who have gone before us (1 Thessalonians 4:13–18). She sees angels — consistent with countless biblical passages about angelic ministry (Hebrews 1:14). The fruit is entirely good: assurance of the afterlife, comfort for the grieving family, and a testimony that Billy Graham himself used in his preaching to encourage millions.

Are we really going to say that Billy Graham's grandmother's deathbed vision was demonic? On what biblical grounds? Miller puts it this way: "Since the Bible doesn't declare that all such experiences are of the devil, why should I dismiss this one as such?"⁴⁷

This is why the case-by-case approach is so important. Each experience must be evaluated on its own merits, using the biblical criteria of consistency with Scripture, the character of the being encountered, and the fruit produced. Some NDEs will clearly pass all these tests. Some will clearly fail them. Some will be ambiguous. But the blanket dismissal — "all of them, without exception, are demonic" — is a position that the Bible does not require and the evidence does not support.

As Miller wisely observes, quoting McQuilkin: both extremes are easier than the center. It's easier to believe everything uncritically than to do the hard work of discernment. And it's easier to reject everything categorically than to evaluate each case individually. But the biblical call is to discernment — to test the spirits (1 John 4:1), to examine the fruit (Matthew 7:15–20), and to hold fast what is good (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

What About Sabom's Own Testimony?

We should pause here and consider something that I think is often overlooked in this debate. Michael Sabom is not just a researcher who studied NDEs. He is a deeply committed Christian who testifies that his engagement with NDE research deepened his faith and led him to a more conservative Christian commitment. Let me say that again: studying NDEs led this cardiologist to join a conservative Presbyterian denomination and be ordained as an elder.

Sabom's Atlanta Study was not a casual survey. He spent two years interviewing 160 patients, 47 of whom had NDEs. He used careful methodology — the Greyson NDE Scale, standardized questionnaires, virgin cases (people who had not told their stories publicly), and he deliberately avoided drawing from IANDS support groups to prevent selection bias. He divided his Christian subjects into conservative and liberal categories based on a carefully constructed Spiritual Beliefs Questionnaire. He evaluated changes in belief both before and after the NDE.³⁹

The results were clear and consistent. NDEs deepened intrinsic faith across all five measured items. The overall NDE group scored significantly higher on the Hoge Intrinsic Religious Motivation Scale than the non-NDE cardiac patient control group. NDEs strengthened belief in God, belief in the afterlife, the desire to pray, concern for others, and decreased emphasis on material things. And the theological direction of change was toward more conservative — not more liberal — Christian belief.

I want to ask the critics a direct question. If you believe all NDEs are demonic, what do you do with Sabom? Here is a rigorous scientist and committed evangelical Christian who says that studying NDEs deepened his walk with the Lord. Here is a researcher whose patients consistently grew in faith, prayer, and love as a result of their NDEs. Here is peer-reviewed evidence published by a PCA elder with endorsements from Bill Bright. Is Sabom deceived? Is he a dupe of Satan? If the critics believe so, they need to explain — specifically and persuasively — why we should dismiss this evidence. So far, they have not.

Argument Four: "Popular NDE Books Contain False Theology"

This is the strongest argument the critics have — and it's one I partially agree with. Let me be honest: some popular NDE books do contain theology that is clearly unbiblical.

Betty Eadie's 1992 bestseller Embraced by the Light is a case in point. As MacArthur rightly observes, Eadie's account reads like a systematic theology of Mormon and New Age doctrine, including the preexistence of human souls. She claimed to have "remembered the creation of the earth."¹⁵ This is not the kind of modest, theologically restrained account we find in the professional research literature. It is an elaborate doctrinal treatise wrapped in an NDE narrative.

Then there's the embarrassing case of The Boy Who Came Back from Heaven by Kevin Malarkey. After selling over a million copies, the boy at the center of the story — Alex Malarkey — publicly admitted that he had made the whole thing up. The publisher pulled the book from print.¹⁶ The moral is plain: sometimes people lie. Sometimes people are confused. Sometimes people have mental illness or false memories. We should not be gullible.

Eben Alexander's Proof of Heaven contains elements of reincarnation, denial of Christ's uniqueness, and New Age mysticism. These are not compatible with biblical Christianity. MacArthur and Hanegraaff are right to critique such books.

But here's the problem. Here's where the critics make a critical logical error.

They are committing what logicians call the fallacy of composition — assuming that what is true of some parts is true of the whole. The fact that some popular NDE books contain false theology does not mean that all NDEs are false. The fact that one person lied about his NDE does not mean everyone is lying. This is like arguing that because some salvation testimonies are fabricated, all salvation testimonies must be fake. Or because some pastors are charlatans, all pastors are frauds. The logic simply does not follow.

Miller shares the critics' concern about publishers and readers uncritically consuming unverified stories. He writes: "I share MacArthur's and Hanegraaff's concerns about publishers and readers uncritically publishing and consuming unverified stories." But he adds: "questionable popular accounts shouldn't cast doubt on all cases presented by competent physicians and researchers, any more than fake salvation testimonies should rule out all legitimate testimonies. That's the fallacy of throwing out the baby with the bath water."¹⁷

In fact, Miller himself restricted his NDE research to scholarly studies — studies conducted by physicians and researchers using established scientific methodology. The data that emerges from that research is dramatically different from the popular "heaven tourism" genre. The professional literature is remarkably consistent in its core findings, overwhelmingly devoid of elaborate doctrinal teaching, and strikingly compatible with mainstream biblical themes — as we saw in detail in Chapter 18.

Argument Five: "NDEs Distract from Scripture's Sufficiency"

We addressed this briefly above and will treat it more thoroughly in Chapter 32. But the short answer is this: NDEs do not compete with Scripture. They confirm it.

What do most NDErs actually report? They report encountering a God of overwhelming love (consistent with 1 John 4:8). They report a life review emphasizing how they treated others (consistent with Matthew 25:31–46 and Romans 2:6). They report Jesus as the central figure (consistent with John 14:6 and Colossians 1:15–20). They report the reality of the afterlife (consistent with 2 Corinthians 5:1–8). They report that love is what matters most (consistent with Matthew 22:37–40). They report a conscious existence apart from the body (consistent with Philippians 1:21–23).

As Miller's exhaustive analysis demonstrates — cataloguing forty-seven specific points of compatibility between NDE/DBE reports and mainstream biblical teachings (Chapter 18) — NDEs overwhelmingly reinforce what Scripture already teaches. They are not adding new doctrines. They are not providing new revelations. They are providing testimonial confirmation of truths already revealed in God's Word.

Miller puts the point sharply. MacArthur argues that "We need to accept the boundaries God himself has put on what he has revealed. It is sheer folly to speculate where Scripture is silent." But Miller responds: where exactly in the Bible did God erect such boundaries around investigating what happens at the point of death? Apparently it is perfectly acceptable for MacArthur to cite scientific research on the diversity of life to enrich his sermons on creation — going far beyond the brief and general statements of Scripture on that topic. But studying what scientific research reveals about experiences at death is off-limits? Where does the Bible draw this line?¹⁸

The answer, I believe, is that it doesn't. The Bible does not prohibit investigating what happens at the border between life and death. If anything, it encourages wisdom-seeking (Proverbs 3:13–26) and the pursuit of truth wherever it leads — as long as we test everything against Scripture's standard (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

Argument Six: "NDEs Promote False Security"

Some critics worry that NDEs promote a "feel-good" theology — a message that everyone goes to heaven, no one faces judgment, and God is so loving that sin doesn't matter. If this were what NDEs actually taught, the concern would be legitimate.

But is this what the research shows?

Not even close. As we explored in Chapter 21, approximately 15–20 percent of NDEs include distressing elements — darkness, frightening beings, isolation, a sense of condemnation. These distressing NDEs are real and well-documented.¹⁹ Their existence directly contradicts the claim that NDEs promote a uniformly positive, consequence-free picture of the afterlife.

Moreover, the life review — which we examined in detail in Chapter 15 — is one of the most common and most intense elements of the NDE. During the life review, NDErs relive their entire lives and experience how their actions affected others. They feel the pain they caused. They see the consequences of their selfishness, cruelty, and indifference. This is not a "feel-good" message. This is accountability. This is consistent with the biblical teaching that "we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil" (2 Corinthians 5:10, ESV).

The life review is not judgment in its final form — it is a preview, a warning, a merciful glimpse of the moral seriousness of our lives. But it is hardly the kind of "anything goes" theology that critics accuse NDEs of promoting.

As we argued in Chapter 22, the consistently loving demeanor of Jesus in NDEs — even toward non-Christians — is not evidence for universalism. It is evidence that the NDE is not the person's final death. Jesus was loving and compassionate to sinners during His earthly ministry too. He ate with tax collectors and prostitutes. He spoke tenderly to the woman caught in adultery. He wept over Jerusalem. Does Jesus' compassion toward sinners in the Gospels mean there is no judgment? Of course not. It means that before final death, God's posture toward sinners is one of mercy, patience, and invitation — "not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance" (2 Peter 3:9, ESV). NDEs are consistent with this biblical picture. The claim that they promote false security misreads the evidence.

The Pastoral Dimension: Real People, Real Harm

We have dealt with the exegetical and evidential problems with the wholesale dismissal of NDEs. But there is one more dimension that must be addressed — and I believe it is the most urgent of all. The blanket dismissal of NDEs causes real pastoral harm to real people.

Let me tell you a story that I find deeply troubling.

In November of 2019, a panel of academic medical professionals, sponsored by the New York Academy of Sciences, addressed the question "What happens when people die?" It was moderated by Dr. Sam Parnia of New York University. During the discussion, Dr. Tom Aufderheide — Professor of Emergency Medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin — recalled a case from the beginning of his career in 1980. A patient with a grim prognosis experienced repeated cardiac arrest. Against all odds, he recovered. Before leaving the hospital, he confided in young Dr. Aufderheide about his near-death experience. He recounted the events of that harrowing night — including conversations outside of his room and the doctor's specific thoughts — from a perspective outside his body.²⁰

Dr. Aufderheide was stunned. The patient had accurately described things he could not possibly have known through normal means. So the doctor suggested the patient talk to his minister. The patient's response is heartbreaking: "Well, I did; but I got half-way through my story and he said 'That's not in the Bible,' walked out and slammed the door."

The doctor then called the psychiatrist. "And I got half-way through the story and the psychiatrist said, 'This is ridiculous' and hung up on me."²¹

Think about what happened to that patient. He had an experience that was, by his own description, more real than his waking life. He accurately perceived events while clinically dead. He sought help from the two people most qualified to guide him — his pastor and his psychiatrist — and both slammed the door. Where does he go now? Miller warns: perhaps to cult members or mediums who will at least listen to his story.²²

This is not an isolated case. NDE researcher Carla Wills-Brandon found that in her interactions with pastors, "most clergy perceive encounters with deceased relatives, angels, beings of light and celestial visions as nonsense." Dale Allison, long-time professor at Princeton Seminary, observes that it is "as though clergy were trying to make the world safe for secularists."²³

The pastoral harm is twofold. First, the experiencer is wounded — their most profound spiritual experience has been rejected by the very community that should have helped them process it. Second, the church loses credibility. When Christians dogmatically declare that something cannot happen — and millions of people know from firsthand experience that it does — the church comes across as uninformed and dismissive. This drives seekers away from the faith, not toward it.

Miller rightly notes that surveys find four to nine percent of people reporting near-death experiences. In a congregation of 500 people, that means over 20 members have probably had one, and many more know of friends and relatives who have reported them. Deathbed experiences are even more common, with over 80 percent of patients in one New York hospice unit reporting them when asked daily.²⁴ These are not fringe experiences. They are widespread. And the church needs to be prepared to address them — not with dismissal, but with discernment, compassion, and biblical wisdom.

Jesus warned: "Temptations to sin are sure to come, but woe to the one through whom they come! It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin" (Luke 17:1–2, ESV). Miller is right to apply this text to the NDE debate. When respected Christian leaders cause people to stumble by dismissing without investigation experiences that are deeply real to them, this is a pastoral failure of the first order.²⁵

The pastor in Dr. Aufderheide's story forced his patient into an impossible dilemma: either believe the Bible or believe your experience. But this is a false dilemma. As we have shown throughout this book, the Bible and the NDE evidence are remarkably compatible. The patient didn't have to choose between the two. He needed a pastor who would listen first, then help him understand his experience in the light of Scripture. Instead, the pastor's reflexive dismissal drove the patient away.

Where do experiencers go when the church slams the door? Miller warns that they may find sympathetic listeners who dismiss Christianity and recommend occult practices.²² The very thing the critics fear — NDErs being drawn into unbiblical belief systems — may be caused, in part, by the critics' own dismissive approach. If the church refuses to engage with these experiences, it creates a vacuum that false teachers are happy to fill.

I want to be very direct here. I believe that Christian leaders who dismiss NDEs without investigation bear a measure of responsibility when experiencers turn to psychics, mediums, and New Age teachers for answers. The church had an opportunity to provide biblical guidance, and it walked out and slammed the door. That is not faithful shepherding. It is negligence.

Solomon urged us, in the most exalted terms, to seek wisdom: "Nothing you desire compares with her" (Proverbs 3:15, ESV). If that's true, then why do so many pastors — who are on a mission to help people understand the relevance of God in their lives — virtually ignore experiences that are often the most vivid and life-changing spiritual events people will ever have? As Miller puts it: if we fail to take experiencers seriously, they may find sympathetic listeners who dismiss Christianity and recommend occult practices.⁴⁸

The Cessationism Connection

There is one more issue lurking beneath the surface of the Christian critique of NDEs, and it deserves to be named directly: cessationism.

Cessationism is the belief that certain spiritual gifts — tongues, prophecy, apostolic miracles — ceased with the death of the apostles or the closing of the biblical canon. This is a respectable theological position held by many conservative evangelicals, including MacArthur himself. But some cessationists extend this principle further than it was ever intended to go, applying it not just to the specific sign gifts but to any extraordinary spiritual experience.

The problem is that even most cessationists do not believe God has stopped working entirely. They affirm answered prayer. They affirm God's providential guidance. They affirm that God can and does intervene in human affairs through His sovereign power. The distinction they draw is between ceased sign gifts — specific charismatic abilities given to individuals for ministry purposes — and God's ongoing providential activity in the world.

NDEs fit comfortably within the latter category, not the former. An NDEr is not exercising a spiritual gift. They are not claiming prophetic authority. They are not speaking in tongues or performing miracles. They are reporting a passive, involuntary experience that occurred during a medical crisis. They did not seek it. They did not invoke it through any technique or ritual. It simply happened to them — and most of them spent the rest of their lives trying to understand it.

Craig Keener, a respected New Testament scholar, has critiqued MacArthur's extension of cessationism, noting that "his attempts to evade these commands' relevance for today belong to his larger theological system of hard cessationism."⁴⁵ Even if one holds to cessationism regarding the sign gifts, it does not follow that God cannot or does not allow people to have genuine spiritual experiences during medical crises. Even the most ardent cessationist will typically affirm that God answers prayer, guides through circumstances, and works through providential means. NDEs, if genuine, would fall within this category of providential spiritual experience — not within the category of ceased charismatic gifts.

Miller makes a related observation about the nature of NDEs that is worth emphasizing. The vast majority of NDEs are not teaching novel doctrines. They are not revelations that experiencers feel compelled to prophetically share with their congregations. They do not grant recipients any special authority or status. Instead, they overwhelmingly reinforce mainstream biblical teachings — God's reality, the importance of love, the existence of the afterlife, the centrality of Jesus, accountability for how we live. They are not adding to biblical revelation. They are testifying to its central themes.⁴⁹ This is testimony, not prophecy. It is confirmation, not new revelation. We will explore the cessationism objection more thoroughly in Chapter 32.

The Tabatt Perspective: A Nuanced Evangelical Approach

It's worth noting that not all evangelicals who take discernment seriously fall into the "all demonic" camp. Shaun Tabatt, in The NDE Conspiracy, provides a framework that takes both the reality of demonic deception and the reality of genuine divine activity seriously. Tabatt agrees that Satan attempts to hijack NDEs — that is the entire premise of his book. But crucially, Tabatt does not conclude that all NDEs are therefore demonic. Instead, he argues that God intended NDEs for good — as a way to reveal Himself to people and alert them to the realities of heaven and hell — and that Satan has attempted to corrupt this channel of divine communication, just as he has attempted to corrupt every other channel throughout history.³⁸

This is a much more nuanced and biblically defensible position than wholesale dismissal. It acknowledges demonic activity without denying genuine divine activity. It calls for discernment without demanding blanket rejection. It takes Satan seriously without giving him credit for everything. And it is consistent with the overall pattern we see in Scripture: God works, and Satan counterfeits. God sends prophets, and Satan sends false prophets. God performs miracles, and Pharaoh's magicians imitate some of them (Exodus 7:10–12). The existence of counterfeits proves the existence of the genuine article.

Tabatt's framework also helps explain something that puzzles many Christians: why do some NDEs contain clearly unbiblical elements alongside genuinely biblical ones? As we explored in Chapter 25, the answer may be that Satan's strategy is not to fabricate entirely fake experiences but to inject subtle distortions into genuine ones. A 95 percent true NDE with 5 percent demonic distortion can be more dangerous than a 100 percent fake one — because the 95 percent truth builds credibility for the 5 percent lie. This is exactly the strategy we see in Genesis 3: Satan did not deny God's existence or power. He simply twisted God's word — "Did God actually say...?" (Genesis 3:1). The deception was subtle, not blatant.

This means the proper Christian response to NDEs is not blanket acceptance or blanket rejection. It is careful, Spirit-led discernment — evaluating each experience against the standard of Scripture and looking for the telltale markers of genuine divine activity versus demonic distortion.

The Inconsistency in MacArthur's Method

I want to press one more point about the internal consistency of the critics' position — particularly MacArthur's.

MacArthur argues that the Bible gives us everything we need to know about heaven, and that we should not look to extra-biblical sources. But as Miller demonstrates, MacArthur himself routinely draws on extra-biblical sources in his teaching. In his sermons on Genesis, MacArthur cites physicists, natural historians, and museum collections to illustrate the complexity and diversity of the created world. He uses these scientific observations as evidence for God's existence and wisdom. And rightly so — Romans 1:20 tells us that God's invisible attributes are "clearly perceived" in creation.²⁶

But here's the inconsistency. MacArthur is happy to cite extra-biblical scientific evidence about the physical world to enrich his teaching on creation. Why, then, is it off-limits to consider what scientific research reveals about the spiritual world — particularly what happens at the boundary between life and death? If "all truth is God's truth" — a maxim that MacArthur would certainly affirm — then why would God fence off this particular area of inquiry?

If MacArthur's sufficiency principle were applied consistently, he could not cite scientists in his sermons. He could not recommend seminary education. He could not write commentaries that draw on archaeology, history, and ancient Near Eastern literature. The sufficiency of Scripture means the Bible is sufficient for salvation and godliness — not that it is the only source of truth about everything.²⁷

Miller puts the challenge directly: "If the Bible is sufficient, in MacArthur's sense that we need nothing more than the Bible, then why do Christian workers need to attend MacArthur's seminary and read his books?"²⁸ It's a fair question. And I don't think the critics have answered it.

The MacArthur Proof-Texts: Do They Actually Forbid NDEs?

MacArthur appeals to two specific passages to prove that people do not go to heaven and return:

"Who has ascended to heaven and come down?" (Proverbs 30:4, ESV)

"No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man." (John 3:13, ESV)

Do these texts actually teach what MacArthur claims?

Let's look at Proverbs 30:4 first. The context is crucial. The author, Agur, is illustrating how little human beings can know and accomplish compared to God. He asks a series of rhetorical questions: "Who has gathered the wind in his fists? Who has wrapped up the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth?" The point is that God alone has the power to do these things. The reference to ascending and descending from heaven is about physically ascending — not about having a spiritual vision or being temporarily caught up in a vision of the heavenly realm. Moreover, the Hebrew word shamayim (שָׁמַיִם) typically refers in the Old Testament to the physical sky and stars, not necessarily to God's dwelling place.²⁹ Agur's question is about human limitation compared to divine power — it is not a categorical statement about whether God can grant visions of the heavenly realm.

Now John 3:13. Jesus says: "No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man." In context, Jesus is making a Christological claim — He alone has come from heaven and therefore He alone has firsthand, authoritative knowledge of heavenly things. He is asserting His unique divine authority as the Son of God. He is not making a pronouncement about whether God can, at His sovereign discretion, grant a human being a temporary vision of heaven. If we take John 3:13 to prohibit any human being from ever seeing heaven, then we have a problem: Paul was "caught up to the third heaven" (2 Corinthians 12:2–4). Stephen saw heaven opened and Jesus standing at God's right hand (Acts 7:55–56). John on Patmos was told "Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this" (Revelation 4:1). Were Paul, Stephen, and John violating John 3:13? Of course not. Jesus is talking about His unique origin and authority — not prohibiting all heavenly visions for all time.

Miller makes this point clearly and persuasively in his treatment of these passages.³⁰ The exegetical foundation for the "no one goes to heaven and returns" argument is simply not there. These texts, read in context, do not say what the critics claim they say.

Respected Evangelical Voices Who Disagree

One final consideration deserves attention. The "all NDEs are demonic" position is sometimes presented as though it represents the consensus of conservative evangelical Christianity. It does not. Some of the most respected evangelical scholars, philosophers, physicians, and pastors of the past half-century have concluded that NDE evidence is credible, important, and compatible with biblical faith.

The late R. C. Sproul — one of the most respected Reformed theologians in America — wrote: "It shouldn't shock the Christian when people undergoing clinical death and being revived come back with certain recollections. I've tried to keep an open mind, and I hope that this interesting phenomenon will get the benefit of further research, analysis, and evaluation. Too many of these experiences have been reported for us to simply dismiss them as imaginary or hoaxes."³¹

Bill Bright, founder of Campus Crusade for Christ (now Cru), endorsed Sabom's work: "Dr. Sabom provides us with a needed scientific look at near-death experiences under the scrutiny of God's Holy Word, the Bible, the only reliable source of eternal truth."³²

Gary Habermas, Distinguished Research Professor at Liberty University and the world's foremost resurrection scholar, includes NDE evidence in Beyond Death (co-authored with J. P. Moreland) as evidence for the afterlife.³³

J. P. Moreland, Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at Biola University and a leading defender of substance dualism, endorsed Burke's Imagine Heaven as one of the top two or three books he has ever read on the subject — calling it "solidly biblical" and urging readers "not only to read this book, but to urge your Christian friends to do the same."³⁴

Lee Strobel, bestselling author of The Case for Christ, praised Burke's approach as "a creative and compelling approach to a controversial yet crucial topic."³⁵

Doug Groothuis, Assistant Professor of Philosophy of Religion and Ethics at Denver Seminary, wrote that NDEs are "a challenge to the materialism of modern science, just as it challenges those who are spiritually inclined to interpret its meaning properly."³⁶

These are not theological liberals. These are not New Age enthusiasts. These are conservative evangelical scholars who have investigated the evidence and concluded it merits serious engagement. When Sproul, Bright, Habermas, Moreland, Strobel, and Groothuis all take NDEs seriously, the claim that all serious Christians reject them is simply false.

Miller applies Jesus' own words: "whoever is not against us is for us" (Mark 9:39, ESV). Since these scholars all claim to serve the same Lord, we would do well to listen to each other before drawing hasty conclusions.³⁷ We will survey these evangelical voices more comprehensively in Chapter 33.

A Better Approach: Discernment, Not Dismissal

So if wholesale dismissal is the wrong approach, what is the right one?

The answer, I believe, is discernment. And that's exactly what this book has been building toward. In Part V (Chapters 25–29), we developed a comprehensive biblical framework for evaluating NDEs — a framework that takes both the reality of divine activity and the reality of demonic deception seriously. The framework is not complicated, but it requires patience and humility — two virtues that blanket dismissal conveniently avoids. Let me summarize the approach briefly here, because it provides the alternative that the critics need.

We should test NDEs the way the Bible tells us to test all spiritual claims:

First, test by Scripture. Does the content of the NDE align with or contradict biblical teaching? NDEs that reinforce biblical themes — God's love, the reality of the afterlife, the centrality of Jesus, the importance of how we treat others — pass this test. NDEs that promote reincarnation, pantheism, or the irrelevance of Christ fail it (Galatians 1:8; Deuteronomy 13:1–5).

Second, test by fruit. What are the long-term effects? Does the experiencer grow in love, faith, prayer, and Christlike character? Or do they drift toward the occult, moral decline, or theological confusion? (Matthew 7:15–20; Galatians 5:22–23).

Third, test by the character of the being encountered. Does the divine being display the biblical attributes of God — love, holiness, justice, mercy, personal engagement? Or is the being vague, evasive, or theologically confusing? (1 John 4:1–3; James 1:17).

Fourth, distinguish core from periphery. The core elements of NDEs — out-of-body experience, brilliant light, unconditional love, life review, encounters with deceased relatives and divine beings — are remarkably consistent across cultures and worldviews. Peripheral theological claims vary widely. The core deserves more weight than the periphery.

Fifth, separate experience from interpretation. As we explored in Chapter 26, the experience may be genuine while the experiencer's theological interpretation of it may be mistaken. A Hindu who encounters a being of overwhelming light and love may genuinely encounter God — but then interpret the experience through a Hindu framework. The experience is real; the interpretation needs correction. This distinction alone resolves many of the apparent contradictions between NDEs and biblical theology that trouble critics.

Sixth, consider source quality. A prospective hospital study published in a peer-reviewed medical journal carries far more weight than an anonymous report on a website or a popular book with a profit motive. This distinction is critical and one that the critics have largely failed to make. Van Lommel's Lancet study, Sabom's Atlanta Study, Greyson's decades of research at the University of Virginia, Long's systematic analysis of the NDERF database, and Parnia's AWARE study represent rigorous scientific investigation.^{41, 42, 43} These are not the same thing as bestselling "heaven tourism" memoirs. Treating them as if they were is an error that no serious engagement with the NDE literature can afford.

This framework allows us to take each NDE on its own merits. It avoids both naive acceptance and reflexive rejection. It uses Scripture as the authoritative standard while remaining open to genuine divine activity. It is exactly the kind of careful, discerning engagement that I believe honors God.

Conclusion: Stay in the Center of Biblical Tension

Robertson McQuilkin was right. It's easier to go to a consistent extreme than to stay in the center of biblical tension. The two extremes in the NDE debate are both dangerous:

On one extreme are those who naively believe every NDE is 100 percent true — every element, every theological claim, every interpretation. This position ignores the Bible's clear warnings about deception and the need for spiritual discernment. It opens the door to false teaching, occult influence, and theological confusion. We have addressed this extreme throughout Part V of this book, and I do not minimize its dangers.

On the other extreme are those who categorically reject every NDE as demonic, hallucinatory, or fraudulent. This position ignores the veridical evidence, fails the biblical fruit test, commits the fallacy of composition, and causes real pastoral harm to real people. It treats the existence of counterfeit experiences as proof that no genuine experiences exist — a logical error that, if applied consistently, would require us to reject all spiritual experiences, all answered prayers, and all testimonies of God's work in people's lives. After all, false conversion testimonies exist; does that mean all conversions are fake?

The biblical center — the harder but more faithful position — is discernment. Test the spirits. Examine the fruit. Compare with Scripture. Evaluate the evidence. Take each case on its own merits. Remain open to genuine divine activity while staying alert to deception. This is what the Bible actually calls us to do.

I believe the evidence is overwhelming that many NDEs are genuine spiritual experiences — encounters with the living God that confirm the Bible's central teachings about the soul, the afterlife, God's character, and the centrality of Jesus Christ. I also believe that some NDEs contain elements of deception, error, or human misinterpretation. The existence of the latter does not invalidate the former — any more than the existence of false prophets invalidates true prophecy, or the existence of counterfeit money invalidates real currency.

The wholesale dismissal of NDEs is not demanded by Scripture, not supported by the evidence, and not practiced by many of the finest evangelical minds of our generation. It is time for the church to move beyond this overcorrection and embrace a wiser, more biblical, more compassionate approach — one that takes both the evidence and the Scriptures seriously.

Let me close with a practical thought. In any given congregation of 500 people, somewhere around 20 to 45 of them have likely had a near-death experience. Many more have sat at the bedside of dying loved ones who described seeing Jesus, angels, or deceased relatives. These are not abstract theological questions for them. They are deeply personal realities. And they are watching to see how the church responds.

Will the church respond with the minister who slammed the door — "That's not in the Bible"? Or will it respond with the compassion of Christ, who sat with sinners and tax collectors and listened to their stories before speaking truth into their lives?

I believe the church can do better. I believe we must do better. And it starts with the simple willingness to listen — to investigate before dismissing, to examine before condemning, and to test the spirits with the patient, humble discernment that Scripture calls us to.

Because when a dying grandmother tells her family she can see Jesus — and her face is radiant with joy — and her grandchildren are watching — I want the church to have something better to say than "That's not in the Bible."

I want the church to say: "Tell us what you see."