Thank you for this in depth look at NDEs. I have read about them for years and finally you have provided the best explanation of them. “For now we see through a glass darkly “. 1 Corinthians 13:12.
Jordan's point about the lack of God's holiness in NDEs is correct and important. I want to bring up a closely related point, which ought to get more attention. NDEs are often framed in terms of their supposed focus on love. But the form of love they promote is suspiciously deficient and inconsistent. Jesus referred to the greatest commandments as loving God and loving other people (Matthew 22:37-39). NDEs tend to be big on the latter while giving far less attention to the former. There's a popular non-Christian view that NDEs are evidence for religious pluralism, the unimportance of theological disputes about God, and so on. Our culture tends to underestimate the first commandment (loving God) while speaking so highly of the second commandment (loving other people). And one of the aspects of NDEs that people find most appealing is meeting deceased relatives and friends. They wouldn't find so much appeal in meeting strangers during their NDE. They want to be reunited with particular deceased loved ones with particular attributes. Similarly, I doubt that it would go over well if a husband told his wife, "To me, you're just a generic representative of womanhood. I don't care much about your character, your interests, or your experiences. I'd be just as happy married to any other woman." It's even more absurd to take that sort of approach toward God. The people who care so much about the details of the mother or friend who meets them in an NDE shouldn't care so little about the details that make God who he is. Even if you don't agree with me that a neglect of the first commandment is a major problem with NDEs in and of themselves, I think all Christians ought to agree that it's at least a major problem with a lot of popular interpretations of NDEs. One of the ways we can address that problem is by pointing out to people the inconsistency between their lack of concern about God's character and their concern for the character of other people.
There's a problem with your analogy, however: humans would take umbrage at being considered interchangeable with other humans because we are distinct members of a species where each member has particular finite attributes. You can't love a 'generic human', you have to love 'this' human or 'that' human. But God as First Cause is sui generis, so unique that you can't even say 'one of a kind' because there isn't a higher 'kind' of which God is 'a' member. Add to that the fact that God is infinitely beyond our comprehension and we are bad at theology even with a direct divine revelation of God's character, so it would only make sense for God to take it easy on us and grade on the curve when it comes to how we describe Him and seek after Him. Theology is important, we ought to strive for as much accuracy in our portrayals of God as we can, but from God's side it would be like a physicist castigating lay members of the public for expressing enthusiasm for atoms described as a miniature solar system rather than a higher dimensional cloud of probabilities. The physicist would accept any expression of enthusiasm for physics, however simplistic, as a foundation to build on and not get too worked up that people don't describe atoms with an accuracy that only comes after years of graduate work.
JD, There's a large gray area between knowing nothing about God and knowing everything about him. And the fact that God is unique doesn't change the fact that we need to distinguish him from other beings, including false gods, and false concepts of God. In my marriage analogy, the woman is already unique in being the man's only wife. But we expect his interest in her to go far beyond that. I don't object to people not having "an accuracy that only comes after years of graduate work". I object to their having far less interest in God than they could and should have and encouraging the same sort of negligence among others. The people of antiquity had some significant disadvantages in comparison to us, such as less literacy and less technology. Yet, they were frequently held accountable for "speaking of me what is right" (Job 42:8), told that they should be teachers by now (Hebrews 5:12), given large and complicated systems of theology (as reflected in the Biblical documents), etc. The Biblical figures who received revelations from God were expected to be able to handle new information, were told that they're wrong on certain issues, and so on. And NDErs often report that what they experienced changed their views in some way and changed their behavior. So, why can't the views of God among NDErs and people commenting on NDEs, like the ones I referred to in my earlier post, go well beyond how far they typically go? I'll use the United States as an illustration, since Jordan Cooper lives there, I do, I know more about it than I know about other countries, and much of the work that's been done on NDEs has been done there. We have a lot of data about how Americans live, what they believe, and so forth. The Department of Labor's annual research on how Americans use their time has found that, on average, they spend about five minutes a day on religious and spiritual activities and about five hours a day on leisure and sports. The problem isn't an inability to grow in our knowledge of God. It's a matter of an unwillingness to grow. The experiencer of an NDE isn't necessarily equivalent to the average American, but what we know about the culture in general gives us reason to think an experiencer of an NDE or a commenter on NDEs in that culture has a good chance of having such characteristics. Given how rapidly people advance through school, learning a new job, and so forth, it doesn't make sense to suggest that the sort of treatment of NDEs that I referred to in my earlier post (e.g., vagueness, religious pluralism) represents all the knowledge a person can handle.
This was very interesting and extremely helpful. Demon possession would be a helpful topic to review. Maybe it would get our minds a little more grounded instead of only thinking of The Exorcist.
a hospital surgical room in england was getting more than usual reports of NDE with people saying they were looking down on the surgery taking place. so the staff put a digital sign above a cabinet that read "if you can read this, you are dead." no one who claimed to have a NDE there after ever reported seeing the sign.
why would you assume they'd see it? not all NDEs result in an OBE. a lot of instantly transported. btw thats not full the story of the study, why dont you actually read it? its not very well put together.
Such an interesting and often unexplored topic, thank you for applying your gifts for research and discernment to it and sharing it with us. Very excited for upcoming videos on the topic of possession! If you are interested in suggestions for new videos, I would love to see a further video on eschatology that discusses how an amillennial view, as affirmed in the Lutheran Confessions, affects our reading of Daniel 7&9, Matthew 24, and 2 Thessalonians 2. I find amillennialism to be one of the areas of the confessions that is most radically divergent from mainstream evangelical Christianity in the US and after growing up in that background I am finding it difficult to sort out what parts of the prophecies are seen as preterist and which are futurist in this framework that is new to me.
I'm so glad you made this video! I was unnerved after reading some NDE stories where people were saying there is no judgement. I haven't watched through your whole video yet, but so far I'm thinking the way to interpret this is that obviously they were not subject to the final judgement because 1) they weren't in a permanent state of death, and 2) we all face our final judgement together on the last day. I suppose this spiritual realm people seem to enter when they leave their bodies could be Sheol.
Superb job on a difficult subject, in fact the best I have seen. Thank you for tackling this. There were several people in the NT who came back to life. The NT writers never show a bit of interest in their experiences. There were no interviews recorded for example, with Lazarus in order to gain insight in what lies beyond the grave. Apparently, God has intended for this to remain largely a mystery to us. The main message of the NT focused upon Christ and His work and that is enough. But we do have a deep interest of course. I look forward to your investigation into the demonic. May God continue to bless your work.
Excellent treatment of this topic, Dr. Cooper. For what it’s worth, I wanted to share my experience for those that are pondering the lack of a sense of God’s holiness in some of these NDE accounts. I have not had an NDE but I had a moment where I had just finished watching a Christian film in my living room and, seemingly out of nowhere, the Holy Spirit filled me in such a way that it felt like a tide of His presence moving through me. Though I had previously been sitting and calmly reflecting on the movie, this experience completely overtook me for about half an hour. The relevant part to this topic is that one of the main aspects of the experience that stands out in retrospect is that there was an overwhelming since of God’s holiness that I couldn’t help but be conscious of. All I could think about was how Holy He is and even the relatively smallest subconscious sin in me seemed to be extremely dirty. I just wanted His cleanness and holiness. Though I was crying and confessing my unworthiness, I have never been so joyful to be convicted of my sin! Isaiah 6’s account of Isaiah’s declaration of his uncleanness in God’s presence is the closest example that I can point to that is like what I experienced-especially in light of the atoning blood of Christ! Any way, like I said, for what it’s worth, I hope this helps encourage somebody if they were troubled by some of the misleading accounts from NDE’s regarding God’s holiness. As Dr. Cooper rightly pointed out, accounts of experiences are not a replacement for the Word of God, but I’m encouraged by accounts of when God truly reveals Himself.
Superb job JB Cooper. You covered a lot of the points I was thinking about and I like that view about there being a battle for the soul. Definitely gives me something to think about.
@29:40 - Regarding the "lack of Holiness" objection, I don't think its strong, for several reasons: 1. This could simply be due to cultural differences as the ancient Israelites obviously had a much more robust notion of the holiness of God than modern people. Just as NDE interpretations of the identity of the beings encountered can vary by culture, so might the response to their presence vary. You're primarily judging how and whether or not God's holiness is perceived by the reactions of the NDE-er; it seems you're expecting prostration and a feeling and/or confession of guilt or unworthiness. But those responses to holiness (and in some instances, status in general), saturate the symbolic and ritual world of ancient Judaism, and both the sight of God and presence of God in sacred space have potentially lethal effects according to their theology. Indeed, some aspects of both the effects of God's holiness, and the ritual requirements for approaching sacred space within the text, seem to indicate that one of the main issues we're dealing with is the penetration of the divine into the terrestrial realm, which just isn't the case in NDEs. 2. The encounters with God in the Bible are often bodily, not experienced out-of-body as in the case of NDEs. Granted, some theophanies are visionary, probably had in some altered state of consciousness like a trance, but presumably the soul/spirit is still fully embodied and thus bound up with the bodily faculties in some way. It could simply be the case that, in the OBE portion of the NDE, once one is free from the biochemical trappings of the body, as the NDE-ers report, the experience of peace is so overwhelming in the presence of the light, that it isn't possible to experience the same level of embodied fear. Disembodied prostration also doesn't seem to make much sense. 3. The encounters with God in the OT and NT are not consistently accompanied by prostration/fear/confession. Moses encounter with the burning bush seems to be with the "angel of the Lord', and he is told by the voice of God that where he stands is holy, but we don't see the fear/shame elements, and Moses talks very casually with God here and on many occasions. Jacob wrestles with the Angel of the Lord, and no mention is made of fear/shame. Similarly with the theophany of Elijah where the Lord "passes by". In the NT, even at the Transfiguration where the deity of Christ is most fully manifest to the apostles, they do not have such a response to the sight of Christ glorified. Only after they hear God's voice do they prostrate themselves in fear, and only that mentioned by Matthew. 4. Perhaps fear/shame shouldn't be seen as necessary responses to Holiness at all. The NDE-ers profound descriptions of their experience of the Light, certainly convey a sense of extreme awe, feelings of ultimacy with regards to the Light's goodness/perfection, love, power, knowledge, authority, etc. They are peak experiences on an order of nothing they've ever encountered. I think the immediate perception of these qualities in the NDE could plausibly fall within the domain of biblical holiness.
#4 is a good point. There's a feeling of overwhelming awe and ineffability that's evident in both NDE's and mystical experiences. But it's not necessarily fear in the sense commonly understood.
You might also include speaking about homes and places where people see faces, people, or strange things taking place. Often times these are terrifying experiences. Great video on NDE.
A pretty good overview - I would recommend Howard Storm on this subject (his books and videos). I also feel labeling Fr. Richard Rohr as just "New Age" is too dismissive/easy, and doesn't give his theology the attention or justice it deserves, which is quite more nuanced and distinguished than what passes in average New Age thought or circles.
I'm not compelled by the lack of holiness theory. Many NDE experiencers speak of a sense of sacred completeness that is beyond words. Also, a proportion of NDErs encounter a hellish realm. Most speak of re-encountering their life in detail - self judgement, but not the banal judgemental way living people would predict. I agree the realm encountered by "near" death experiencers may not be their ultimate destination. Some speak of a barrier, a guardian, a gate or path forbidden to them beyond which lay an immortal realm. Others describe a transitional dimension between the out of body experience and the heavenly destination, in which entities attempt to delay their progress. These seem like real places, not abstractions of consciousness. What unites priests, pastors and medics is a total inability to place these life-changing experiences in a context that is helpful to the experiencer. Their testimonies are transgressive to prevailing orthodoxies, and dismissed or condemned. Discounting cases that are totally New Age (no such thing as right and wrong, no judgement, purposeless "vanilla" heavens) and openly proselytising accounts (ministry NDEs), we are still left with a body of testimony from individuals without a pulse or functioning brain, with recurring features, who describe being more aware than in life by orders of magnitude, and with more agency. These have religious connotations, whether they meet our expectations, or not.
Great video! Thanks Dr Cooper. I have done a lot of reading in this area too. Pim bam Lommel’s book on consciousness beyond life is interesting, if speculative. A story that gripped me especially was Mary Neal’s “7 Lessons From Heaven”, if you haven’t come across that one yet.
Thanks for taking on this issue in both a thoughtful and biblical way Growing up in a very conservative Lutheran environment- we would have been strongly discouraged from even asking this question
The whole thing about "demonic strategies" with regard to NDEs (and the spirit of the age) makes one think of Screwtape Letters. Very scary stuff, but also illuminating.
Hello Dr. Jordan Cooper, I would like to know, if possible, where I might get a copy in music notation of your introduction music. I don't know if I should put a period or a question mark at the end of that sentence. I do dabble with stringed instruments ever since my sister pointed out that I can usually play any stringed instrument in minutes and that piece may give me some motivation to pick up my guitar again. I also play a little ukulele, violin (just started), piano ('cause I grew up around one but never learned formally. I want to now.), and want to learn banjo, and organ... all while not letting go of my accumulated guitar skill. But what God wants is more important.
There is another perspective is that the nde is the truth more directly presented with less filter. It confirms alot of truth in Christianity but gives a bigger and deeper picture of the truth. The life review is perfect justice, you don't just feel alittle bad, you feel the exact pain you caused which is a perfect justice. Think of what Hitler is going to go through in his life review? If you rape, torture, or murder someone you experience that. Again perfect justice meeted out, you don't get away with anything. The main point of the life review is to learn and grow spiritually. This is the final judgment and fills in exactly how it happens. You talk of God's holiness, the Supreme love is the deepest point of his holiness, the holiness comes out of love. The nde gives you a fuller and deeper understanding of scripture, it also fills in gaps in our understanding.
I'm a liberal Protestant (well really, "post-Protestant" in some ways) so I don't really have a problem with NDE's. At the same time, I don't think being "spiritual but not religious" is a good substitute for belonging to a religious community, being in community with others, and engaging in spiritual practices directed towards personal growth and transformation. My Christian faith has alot do with this-worldliness, because I think it's more consistent with Jesus' teachings: the Kingdom is here and now. Years ago I read Seraphim Rose's stuff, when I was interested in Eastern Orthodoxy (I was a catechumen for many years but ultimately ran into the phenomenon of the parish being overrun by Orthobros). The whole "NDE's are demonic" thing I find difficult, because people that have NDE's usually go on to live transformed lives for the most part. They speak of their experiences without guile. Satan cannot stand against himself. I actually used to be Lutheran years ago but left because the elders at the church didn't want people giving money to homeless people who might come to the church. That went against my conscience. The Bible says whoever loans to the poor, loans to the Lord. St. John Chrysostom says if we cannot see Christ in the beggar at the church door, we will not find him in the Eucharist. So I just had to part ways after I talked to the church elders and they couldn't see my point (I privately confronted them one on one, not wanting to publicly shame any of them), and they acted like it was my responsibility to accomodate their sinful attitudes. That was sad and not easy to do as I had some good memories in that church over the years. I actually had two profound spiritual experiences at that church, as I am somebody sensitive to those types of things. I continue to pray for my old church.
how do you think we actually get through final judgement? believers and non-believers get through in the same way? same criteria? if believers are tested on how much they followed christ’s commandments idk how it’s different from non-believers
All Christians must answer for how they've lived their lives at the Judgment Seat of Christ. But only the redeemed will be there. Salvation, as always, is by grace through faith in Jesus as God Incarnate. Everything about Jesus goes back to the Incarnation, always.
Would you know of any near death experiences occurring in people who identify as muslim or buddhist? I'm curious to what muslim authors/scholars have to say about NDE's. Thanks for your video really informative (I ended up buying the soul after death book lol)
Good video but you are correct to avoid talking about toll houses, because your brief comment about it (that you could be destined for heaven then a demon could drag you away) is not present in any teaching about the toll houses and runs contrary to what Fr Seraphim says himself. Overall, great video!
The way I describe the spiritual world is "soupy". It's not as simple as we like to think, it's more of a mess of good, evil, and some gray areas. I think all religions are based on some real encounter with the spiritual world. However, it's absolutely true that there's a war between good and evil, and the only way we can be secure in this soupy spiritual mess is by trusting in Jesus, who is our conquering King.
Could you explain a bit more about why you believe this debunks materialism? Couldn't the change in perspective throughout time in NDEs be explained by natural factors and not the demons changing their strategy?
I wonder if the demonic toll-house thing with the Russian Orthodox might be related to the pre-Christian Greek myth of Charon the ferryman of Hades, who had to be paid two obols for passage across the river Styx. See Lucian's "Dialogues of the Dead" and also the Greek tragedians, or Aristophanes' "Frogs". Someone who knows more about Eastern Orthodoxy might be able to elucidate more. Definitely unbiblical, in any case.
Overall a very good discussion. One potential challenge to your interpretation of what people are experiencing during NDEs is the thesis that the afterlife is ideoplastic, that is since there is no longer 'hard' physical reality to constrain our perceptions what we experience in the afterlife is largely determined by our own prior experiences, culture, etc. So when one person encounters Jesus and another encounters Shiva, this difference may reflect each person's upbringing and cultural expectations. Obviously this would pose some difficulty for a strictly Christian interpretation, unless we take into account stages in which at first afterlife experiences are quite chaotic but then as higher beings break through to the departed the experiences begin to stabilize and the person attains a clearer sense of what the afterlife is 'really' like. I do think you were a bit glib about the life review in connection with Jeffrey Epstein. I grant that there is real evil and that Epstein was a very evil person, but if he ended up experiencing all the suffering caused to his victims 'from their point of view' this would not be just a case of 'feeling a bit bad' before being enveloped in unconditional love. This would in fact end up being quite a hellish experience and in line perhaps with a Universalist reading of the ungrateful steward, he would not emerge from that life review until he had paid 'the uttermost farthing', that is endured fully all the evil he inflicted on others. This is far from a free pass.
1 Cor 3:10-15 absolutely makes sense in light of Catholic Dogma. No foundation can be laid down besides that of Christ Jesus. Salvation comes from the grace merited from Lord Jesus' passion alone. That is why He is the only way to the Father, since only the God-man can reconcile us due to His sacrifice of infinite value. However, once you have that foundation (meaning you are in a state of sanctifying grace), your works are meritorious. If your works are akin to gold, you get rewards for it. If your works are akin to hay, then you will be saved but only through fire. You are saved since you have sanctifying grace (Christ as the foundation), but you must be purified through fire (purgatory) since you are not perfect, as the Father in heaven is perfect (Matthew 5:48). This is why St. John can distinguish between sin that leads to death, and sin that does not lead to death (1 John 5:17). Now obviously all sin leads to physical death, as we see "For the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). So, what St. John is distinguishing is that some sins lead to spiritual death. This is the distinction between mortal sins (which kill the life of sanctifying grace in the soul) and venial sins (which does not kill the life of sanctifying grace in the soul.) This is exactly why in 1 Cor 6:9-11 we see St. Paul tell baptized Christians that if they commit mortal sins like drunkenness, idolatry, sexual immorality, that they will be excluded from the kingdom of heaven. That's exactly why the Apostles were given the ability to forgive and retain sins (John 20:23), even though Baptism washes away all sin. Because a baptized Christian can sin again, and lose grace (as indicated by St. Paul's warning to baptized Christians.) This is why St. Paul does not have assurance of salvation as seen when he says "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" (Philippians 2:12). This is because "My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me." (1 Corinthians 4:4). This perfectly matches Catholic dogma - we cannot have 100% perfect assurance of salvation, because only the Lord God can judge if I am in grace. I can have a reasonable assurance - but I could be deceiving myself and living in sin, or I can be committing the sin of omission. That is why the goats who did not feed the poor can be condemned (Matthew 25:31-46). They were not condemned for some positive action, but from failure of action - which can be a mortal sin. This is why in Ephesians 2:8-10 we see that we are saved by grace through faith and not by works. But at the same time "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works." This is exactly the Catholic view, only sanctifying grace from the Lord Jesus saves you - which is completely gratuitious. Yet, your works do matter and you need to keep the commandments to maintain such a state of grace. But it's not the works that save you, but the grace itself. That is why we reject faith alone and once saved always saved. The Catholic view of justification, grace, and purgatory perfectly synthesizes the teachings of the New Testament. We don't put the New Testament authors in conflict with one another, we simply reconcile all their teachings in a cohesive framework.
@@dwong9289 I think you misunderstand the protestant view on this. We also believe that we are saved by grace but judged by works. Faith without works is dead.
@@he7230 I know the Lutherans also share that view. But the point of my comment was to show that the Catholic view synthesizes all the truths of salvation demonstrated by scripture - such as purgatory, matters concerning assurance of salvation + saved by grace.
Very few NDE's re-confirm for the viewer to continue to pray and praise God. In most cases the reverse is true, ie, it's not that important. A deceiver would not doubt show a lot of truth sprinkled with direct heresy to sow confusion. When you die is when you will be tempted the most - it is satan's last chance.
It doesn’t make sense that God would allow satan to have anything to do with our deaths. God is THE supreme being. It’s not like Satan can just do what he wants with our souls. Therefore, I disagree. I think NDE’s are just a realm between life and permanent death.
All that matters is that Jesus Christ is the only way to the Father and that he is the only truth. And that the only way to be saved is to simply believe that Jesus is the Christ who has given you eternal life as a free gift of grace.
It is good to see someone doing this, for such an evaluation is much needed.
Thank you for this in depth look at NDEs. I have read about them for years and finally you have provided the best explanation of them. “For now we see through a glass darkly “. 1 Corinthians 13:12.
Jordan's point about the lack of God's holiness in NDEs is correct and important. I want to bring up a closely related point, which ought to get more attention. NDEs are often framed in terms of their supposed focus on love. But the form of love they promote is suspiciously deficient and inconsistent. Jesus referred to the greatest commandments as loving God and loving other people (Matthew 22:37-39). NDEs tend to be big on the latter while giving far less attention to the former.
There's a popular non-Christian view that NDEs are evidence for religious pluralism, the unimportance of theological disputes about God, and so on. Our culture tends to underestimate the first commandment (loving God) while speaking so highly of the second commandment (loving other people). And one of the aspects of NDEs that people find most appealing is meeting deceased relatives and friends. They wouldn't find so much appeal in meeting strangers during their NDE. They want to be reunited with particular deceased loved ones with particular attributes. Similarly, I doubt that it would go over well if a husband told his wife, "To me, you're just a generic representative of womanhood. I don't care much about your character, your interests, or your experiences. I'd be just as happy married to any other woman." It's even more absurd to take that sort of approach toward God. The people who care so much about the details of the mother or friend who meets them in an NDE shouldn't care so little about the details that make God who he is. Even if you don't agree with me that a neglect of the first commandment is a major problem with NDEs in and of themselves, I think all Christians ought to agree that it's at least a major problem with a lot of popular interpretations of NDEs. One of the ways we can address that problem is by pointing out to people the inconsistency between their lack of concern about God's character and their concern for the character of other people.
That's a brilliant comment, Jason. I think you're exactly right.
There's a problem with your analogy, however: humans would take umbrage at being considered interchangeable with other humans because we are distinct members of a species where each member has particular finite attributes. You can't love a 'generic human', you have to love 'this' human or 'that' human. But God as First Cause is sui generis, so unique that you can't even say 'one of a kind' because there isn't a higher 'kind' of which God is 'a' member. Add to that the fact that God is infinitely beyond our comprehension and we are bad at theology even with a direct divine revelation of God's character, so it would only make sense for God to take it easy on us and grade on the curve when it comes to how we describe Him and seek after Him. Theology is important, we ought to strive for as much accuracy in our portrayals of God as we can, but from God's side it would be like a physicist castigating lay members of the public for expressing enthusiasm for atoms described as a miniature solar system rather than a higher dimensional cloud of probabilities. The physicist would accept any expression of enthusiasm for physics, however simplistic, as a foundation to build on and not get too worked up that people don't describe atoms with an accuracy that only comes after years of graduate work.
JD,
There's a large gray area between knowing nothing about God and knowing everything about him. And the fact that God is unique doesn't change the fact that we need to distinguish him from other beings, including false gods, and false concepts of God. In my marriage analogy, the woman is already unique in being the man's only wife. But we expect his interest in her to go far beyond that. I don't object to people not having "an accuracy that only comes after years of graduate work". I object to their having far less interest in God than they could and should have and encouraging the same sort of negligence among others.
The people of antiquity had some significant disadvantages in comparison to us, such as less literacy and less technology. Yet, they were frequently held accountable for "speaking of me what is right" (Job 42:8), told that they should be teachers by now (Hebrews 5:12), given large and complicated systems of theology (as reflected in the Biblical documents), etc. The Biblical figures who received revelations from God were expected to be able to handle new information, were told that they're wrong on certain issues, and so on. And NDErs often report that what they experienced changed their views in some way and changed their behavior. So, why can't the views of God among NDErs and people commenting on NDEs, like the ones I referred to in my earlier post, go well beyond how far they typically go?
I'll use the United States as an illustration, since Jordan Cooper lives there, I do, I know more about it than I know about other countries, and much of the work that's been done on NDEs has been done there. We have a lot of data about how Americans live, what they believe, and so forth. The Department of Labor's annual research on how Americans use their time has found that, on average, they spend about five minutes a day on religious and spiritual activities and about five hours a day on leisure and sports. The problem isn't an inability to grow in our knowledge of God. It's a matter of an unwillingness to grow. The experiencer of an NDE isn't necessarily equivalent to the average American, but what we know about the culture in general gives us reason to think an experiencer of an NDE or a commenter on NDEs in that culture has a good chance of having such characteristics. Given how rapidly people advance through school, learning a new job, and so forth, it doesn't make sense to suggest that the sort of treatment of NDEs that I referred to in my earlier post (e.g., vagueness, religious pluralism) represents all the knowledge a person can handle.
This was very interesting and extremely helpful. Demon possession would be a helpful topic to review. Maybe it would get our minds a little more grounded instead of only thinking of The Exorcist.
a hospital surgical room in england was getting more than usual reports of NDE with people saying they were looking down on the surgery taking place. so the staff put a digital sign above a cabinet that read "if you can read this, you are dead." no one who claimed to have a NDE there after ever reported seeing the sign.
why would you assume they'd see it? not all NDEs result in an OBE. a lot of instantly transported. btw thats not full the story of the study, why dont you actually read it? its not very well put together.
Such an interesting and often unexplored topic, thank you for applying your gifts for research and discernment to it and sharing it with us. Very excited for upcoming videos on the topic of possession! If you are interested in suggestions for new videos, I would love to see a further video on eschatology that discusses how an amillennial view, as affirmed in the Lutheran Confessions, affects our reading of Daniel 7&9, Matthew 24, and 2 Thessalonians 2. I find amillennialism to be one of the areas of the confessions that is most radically divergent from mainstream evangelical Christianity in the US and after growing up in that background I am finding it difficult to sort out what parts of the prophecies are seen as preterist and which are futurist in this framework that is new to me.
I'm so glad you made this video! I was unnerved after reading some NDE stories where people were saying there is no judgement.
I haven't watched through your whole video yet, but so far I'm thinking the way to interpret this is that obviously they were not subject to the final judgement because 1) they weren't in a permanent state of death, and 2) we all face our final judgement together on the last day.
I suppose this spiritual realm people seem to enter when they leave their bodies could be Sheol.
Superb job on a difficult subject, in fact the best I have seen. Thank you for tackling this. There were several people in the NT who came back to life. The NT writers never show a bit of interest in their experiences. There were no interviews recorded for example, with Lazarus in order to gain insight in what lies beyond the grave. Apparently, God has intended for this to remain largely a mystery to us. The main message of the NT focused upon Christ and His work and that is enough. But we do have a deep interest of course. I look forward to your investigation into the demonic. May God continue to bless your work.
Excellent treatment of this topic, Dr. Cooper. For what it’s worth, I wanted to share my experience for those that are pondering the lack of a sense of God’s holiness in some of these NDE accounts.
I have not had an NDE but I had a moment where I had just finished watching a Christian film in my living room and, seemingly out of nowhere, the Holy Spirit filled me in such a way that it felt like a tide of His presence moving through me. Though I had previously been sitting and calmly reflecting on the movie, this experience completely overtook me for about half an hour.
The relevant part to this topic is that one of the main aspects of the experience that stands out in retrospect is that there was an overwhelming since of God’s holiness that I couldn’t help but be conscious of. All I could think about was how Holy He is and even the relatively smallest subconscious sin in me seemed to be extremely dirty. I just wanted His cleanness and holiness. Though I was crying and confessing my unworthiness, I have never been so joyful to be convicted of my sin! Isaiah 6’s account of Isaiah’s declaration of his uncleanness in God’s presence is the closest example that I can point to that is like what I experienced-especially in light of the atoning blood of Christ!
Any way, like I said, for what it’s worth, I hope this helps encourage somebody if they were troubled by some of the misleading accounts from NDE’s regarding God’s holiness. As Dr. Cooper rightly pointed out, accounts of experiences are not a replacement for the Word of God, but I’m encouraged by accounts of when God truly reveals Himself.
Superb job JB Cooper. You covered a lot of the points I was thinking about and I like that view about there being a battle for the soul. Definitely gives me something to think about.
...please tell me I'm not the only one who thought the title in the thumbnail read "The Theology of Nudes." I nearly choked on my sauerbraten!
@29:40 - Regarding the "lack of Holiness" objection, I don't think its strong, for several reasons:
1. This could simply be due to cultural differences as the ancient Israelites obviously had a much more robust notion of the holiness of God than modern people. Just as NDE interpretations of the identity of the beings encountered can vary by culture, so might the response to their presence vary. You're primarily judging how and whether or not God's holiness is perceived by the reactions of the NDE-er; it seems you're expecting prostration and a feeling and/or confession of guilt or unworthiness. But those responses to holiness (and in some instances, status in general), saturate the symbolic and ritual world of ancient Judaism, and both the sight of God and presence of God in sacred space have potentially lethal effects according to their theology. Indeed, some aspects of both the effects of God's holiness, and the ritual requirements for approaching sacred space within the text, seem to indicate that one of the main issues we're dealing with is the penetration of the divine into the terrestrial realm, which just isn't the case in NDEs.
2. The encounters with God in the Bible are often bodily, not experienced out-of-body as in the case of NDEs. Granted, some theophanies are visionary, probably had in some altered state of consciousness like a trance, but presumably the soul/spirit is still fully embodied and thus bound up with the bodily faculties in some way. It could simply be the case that, in the OBE portion of the NDE, once one is free from the biochemical trappings of the body, as the NDE-ers report, the experience of peace is so overwhelming in the presence of the light, that it isn't possible to experience the same level of embodied fear. Disembodied prostration also doesn't seem to make much sense.
3. The encounters with God in the OT and NT are not consistently accompanied by prostration/fear/confession. Moses encounter with the burning bush seems to be with the "angel of the Lord', and he is told by the voice of God that where he stands is holy, but we don't see the fear/shame elements, and Moses talks very casually with God here and on many occasions. Jacob wrestles with the Angel of the Lord, and no mention is made of fear/shame. Similarly with the theophany of Elijah where the Lord "passes by". In the NT, even at the Transfiguration where the deity of Christ is most fully manifest to the apostles, they do not have such a response to the sight of Christ glorified. Only after they hear God's voice do they prostrate themselves in fear, and only that mentioned by Matthew.
4. Perhaps fear/shame shouldn't be seen as necessary responses to Holiness at all. The NDE-ers profound descriptions of their experience of the Light, certainly convey a sense of extreme awe, feelings of ultimacy with regards to the Light's goodness/perfection, love, power, knowledge, authority, etc. They are peak experiences on an order of nothing they've ever encountered. I think the immediate perception of these qualities in the NDE could plausibly fall within the domain of biblical holiness.
#4 is a good point.
There's a feeling of overwhelming awe and ineffability that's evident in both NDE's and mystical experiences. But it's not necessarily fear in the sense commonly understood.
You might also include speaking about homes and places where people see faces, people, or strange things taking place. Often times these are terrifying experiences. Great video on NDE.
Like shadow people & the hatman?
A pretty good overview - I would recommend Howard Storm on this subject (his books and videos).
I also feel labeling Fr. Richard Rohr as just "New Age" is too dismissive/easy, and doesn't give his theology the attention or justice it deserves, which is quite more nuanced and distinguished than what passes in average New Age thought or circles.
I'm not compelled by the lack of holiness theory. Many NDE experiencers speak of a sense of sacred completeness that is beyond words. Also, a proportion of NDErs encounter a hellish realm. Most speak of re-encountering their life in detail - self judgement, but not the banal judgemental way living people would predict. I agree the realm encountered by "near" death experiencers may not be their ultimate destination. Some speak of a barrier, a guardian, a gate or path forbidden to them beyond which lay an immortal realm. Others describe a transitional dimension between the out of body experience and the heavenly destination, in which entities attempt to delay their progress. These seem like real places, not abstractions of consciousness.
What unites priests, pastors and medics is a total inability to place these life-changing experiences in a context that is helpful to the experiencer. Their testimonies are transgressive to prevailing orthodoxies, and dismissed or condemned. Discounting cases that are totally New Age (no such thing as right and wrong, no judgement, purposeless "vanilla" heavens) and openly proselytising accounts (ministry NDEs), we are still left with a body of testimony from individuals without a pulse or functioning brain, with recurring features, who describe being more aware than in life by orders of magnitude, and with more agency. These have religious connotations, whether they meet our expectations, or not.
Very good response.
So good, and so needed! Can't wait for more (including the videos on demonic possession, and anything related to spiritual warfare and deception).
Very good! Looking forward to the next ones!
Hello there Dr Jordan Cooper Another enlighten content
Once again God bless you ✝️🙏💕
nice new look. Love the new haircut and trimmed beard. 😃
Great talk. Thank you.
A video on exorcisms would be cool!
Great video! Thanks Dr Cooper. I have done a lot of reading in this area too. Pim bam Lommel’s book on consciousness beyond life is interesting, if speculative. A story that gripped me especially was Mary Neal’s “7 Lessons From Heaven”, if you haven’t come across that one yet.
Can you name drop some of the medical journals talking about NDE and the survey accounts?
I'd like to look into this.
This video reminds me of the 1990s movie "Flatliners" about the guys who would kills medically kill themselves and bring themselves back
Didnt they do a remake a few years ago? I could be wrong
@@svnsetsomnia8280 Yeah but I heard it was trash
What Seraphim Rose argues definitely has the best explanatory power.
Thanks for taking on this issue in both a thoughtful and biblical way
Growing up in a very conservative Lutheran environment- we would have been strongly discouraged from even asking this question
The whole thing about "demonic strategies" with regard to NDEs (and the spirit of the age) makes one think of Screwtape Letters. Very scary stuff, but also illuminating.
Hello Dr. Jordan Cooper, I would like to know, if possible, where I might get a copy in music notation of your introduction music. I don't know if I should put a period or a question mark at the end of that sentence. I do dabble with stringed instruments ever since my sister pointed out that I can usually play any stringed instrument in minutes and that piece may give me some motivation to pick up my guitar again. I also play a little ukulele, violin (just started), piano ('cause I grew up around one but never learned formally. I want to now.), and want to learn banjo, and organ... all while not letting go of my accumulated guitar skill.
But what God wants is more important.
There is another perspective is that the nde is the truth more directly presented with less filter. It confirms alot of truth in Christianity but gives a bigger and deeper picture of the truth. The life review is perfect justice, you don't just feel alittle bad, you feel the exact pain you caused which is a perfect justice. Think of what Hitler is going to go through in his life review? If you rape, torture, or murder someone you experience that. Again perfect justice meeted out, you don't get away with anything. The main point of the life review is to learn and grow spiritually. This is the final judgment and fills in exactly how it happens. You talk of God's holiness, the Supreme love is the deepest point of his holiness, the holiness comes out of love. The nde gives you a fuller and deeper understanding of scripture, it also fills in gaps in our understanding.
I'm a liberal Protestant (well really, "post-Protestant" in some ways) so I don't really have a problem with NDE's. At the same time, I don't think being "spiritual but not religious" is a good substitute for belonging to a religious community, being in community with others, and engaging in spiritual practices directed towards personal growth and transformation. My Christian faith has alot do with this-worldliness, because I think it's more consistent with Jesus' teachings: the Kingdom is here and now.
Years ago I read Seraphim Rose's stuff, when I was interested in Eastern Orthodoxy (I was a catechumen for many years but ultimately ran into the phenomenon of the parish being overrun by Orthobros). The whole "NDE's are demonic" thing I find difficult, because people that have NDE's usually go on to live transformed lives for the most part. They speak of their experiences without guile. Satan cannot stand against himself.
I actually used to be Lutheran years ago but left because the elders at the church didn't want people giving money to homeless people who might come to the church. That went against my conscience. The Bible says whoever loans to the poor, loans to the Lord. St. John Chrysostom says if we cannot see Christ in the beggar at the church door, we will not find him in the Eucharist. So I just had to part ways after I talked to the church elders and they couldn't see my point (I privately confronted them one on one, not wanting to publicly shame any of them), and they acted like it was my responsibility to accomodate their sinful attitudes.
That was sad and not easy to do as I had some good memories in that church over the years. I actually had two profound spiritual experiences at that church, as I am somebody sensitive to those types of things. I continue to pray for my old church.
Like the new look
I’m curious if it’s possible to have death defects like birth defects~
how do you think we actually get through final judgement? believers and non-believers get through in the same way? same criteria?
if believers are tested on how much they followed christ’s commandments idk how it’s different from non-believers
All Christians must answer for how they've lived their lives at the Judgment Seat of Christ. But only the redeemed will be there. Salvation, as always, is by grace through faith in Jesus as God Incarnate. Everything about Jesus goes back to the Incarnation, always.
@@bobtaylor170 That doesn’t really answer my question!
@@ConciseCabbage , it does. What isn't clear to you?
Would you know of any near death experiences occurring in people who identify as muslim or buddhist? I'm curious to what muslim authors/scholars have to say about NDE's. Thanks for your video really informative (I ended up buying the soul after death book lol)
Did Scrooge have a near death experience in "A Christmas Carol" ?
the lack of holiness. wow. and the parallel with nde and Mormonism. fascinating.
Good video but you are correct to avoid talking about toll houses, because your brief comment about it (that you could be destined for heaven then a demon could drag you away) is not present in any teaching about the toll houses and runs contrary to what Fr Seraphim says himself. Overall, great video!
The way I describe the spiritual world is "soupy". It's not as simple as we like to think, it's more of a mess of good, evil, and some gray areas. I think all religions are based on some real encounter with the spiritual world. However, it's absolutely true that there's a war between good and evil, and the only way we can be secure in this soupy spiritual mess is by trusting in Jesus, who is our conquering King.
Could you explain a bit more about why you believe this debunks materialism? Couldn't the change in perspective throughout time in NDEs be explained by natural factors and not the demons changing their strategy?
I wonder if the demonic toll-house thing with the Russian Orthodox might be related to the pre-Christian Greek myth of Charon the ferryman of Hades, who had to be paid two obols for passage across the river Styx. See Lucian's "Dialogues of the Dead" and also the Greek tragedians, or Aristophanes' "Frogs". Someone who knows more about Eastern Orthodoxy might be able to elucidate more. Definitely unbiblical, in any case.
My dad's uncle had a 'near-death experience' when he was brain-dead and said that he talked to his dead mother and then to Christ.
If you don’t mind my asking, what did they say?
@@Groszify I don't think he spoke with his mother but he said he talked to Jesus about baseball
Your voice sounds way different. New mic?
Overall a very good discussion. One potential challenge to your interpretation of what people are experiencing during NDEs is the thesis that the afterlife is ideoplastic, that is since there is no longer 'hard' physical reality to constrain our perceptions what we experience in the afterlife is largely determined by our own prior experiences, culture, etc. So when one person encounters Jesus and another encounters Shiva, this difference may reflect each person's upbringing and cultural expectations. Obviously this would pose some difficulty for a strictly Christian interpretation, unless we take into account stages in which at first afterlife experiences are quite chaotic but then as higher beings break through to the departed the experiences begin to stabilize and the person attains a clearer sense of what the afterlife is 'really' like.
I do think you were a bit glib about the life review in connection with Jeffrey Epstein. I grant that there is real evil and that Epstein was a very evil person, but if he ended up experiencing all the suffering caused to his victims 'from their point of view' this would not be just a case of 'feeling a bit bad' before being enveloped in unconditional love. This would in fact end up being quite a hellish experience and in line perhaps with a Universalist reading of the ungrateful steward, he would not emerge from that life review until he had paid 'the uttermost farthing', that is endured fully all the evil he inflicted on others. This is far from a free pass.
Speaking of what happens after death, what is you interpretation of 1 Cor 3: 10-15? Seems kinda-maybe-purgatory-ish, but I'm curious how you view it.
1 Cor 3:10-15 absolutely makes sense in light of Catholic Dogma. No foundation can be laid down besides that of Christ Jesus. Salvation comes from the grace merited from Lord Jesus' passion alone. That is why He is the only way to the Father, since only the God-man can reconcile us due to His sacrifice of infinite value. However, once you have that foundation (meaning you are in a state of sanctifying grace), your works are meritorious. If your works are akin to gold, you get rewards for it. If your works are akin to hay, then you will be saved but only through fire. You are saved since you have sanctifying grace (Christ as the foundation), but you must be purified through fire (purgatory) since you are not perfect, as the Father in heaven is perfect (Matthew 5:48).
This is why St. John can distinguish between sin that leads to death, and sin that does not lead to death (1 John 5:17). Now obviously all sin leads to physical death, as we see "For the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). So, what St. John is distinguishing is that some sins lead to spiritual death. This is the distinction between mortal sins (which kill the life of sanctifying grace in the soul) and venial sins (which does not kill the life of sanctifying grace in the soul.) This is exactly why in 1 Cor 6:9-11 we see St. Paul tell baptized Christians that if they commit mortal sins like drunkenness, idolatry, sexual immorality, that they will be excluded from the kingdom of heaven. That's exactly why the Apostles were given the ability to forgive and retain sins (John 20:23), even though Baptism washes away all sin. Because a baptized Christian can sin again, and lose grace (as indicated by St. Paul's warning to baptized Christians.) This is why St. Paul does not have assurance of salvation as seen when he says "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" (Philippians 2:12). This is because "My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me." (1 Corinthians 4:4). This perfectly matches Catholic dogma - we cannot have 100% perfect assurance of salvation, because only the Lord God can judge if I am in grace. I can have a reasonable assurance - but I could be deceiving myself and living in sin, or I can be committing the sin of omission. That is why the goats who did not feed the poor can be condemned (Matthew 25:31-46). They were not condemned for some positive action, but from failure of action - which can be a mortal sin.
This is why in Ephesians 2:8-10 we see that we are saved by grace through faith and not by works. But at the same time "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works." This is exactly the Catholic view, only sanctifying grace from the Lord Jesus saves you - which is completely gratuitious. Yet, your works do matter and you need to keep the commandments to maintain such a state of grace. But it's not the works that save you, but the grace itself. That is why we reject faith alone and once saved always saved. The Catholic view of justification, grace, and purgatory perfectly synthesizes the teachings of the New Testament. We don't put the New Testament authors in conflict with one another, we simply reconcile all their teachings in a cohesive framework.
@@dwong9289 I think you misunderstand the protestant view on this. We also believe that we are saved by grace but judged by works. Faith without works is dead.
@@he7230 I know the Lutherans also share that view. But the point of my comment was to show that the Catholic view synthesizes all the truths of salvation demonstrated by scripture - such as purgatory, matters concerning assurance of salvation + saved by grace.
@@dwong9289 I think it is probably only some Calvinists who would disagree with you when it comes to assurance of salvation.
@@he7230 Interesting. I thought most protestant denominations taught assurance of salvation. Is that only Calvinism?
Very few NDE's re-confirm for the viewer to continue to pray and praise God. In most cases the reverse is true, ie, it's not that important. A deceiver would not doubt show a lot of truth sprinkled with direct heresy to sow confusion. When you die is when you will be tempted the most - it is satan's last chance.
It doesn’t make sense that God would allow satan to have anything to do with our deaths. God is THE supreme being. It’s not like Satan can just do what he wants with our souls. Therefore, I disagree. I think NDE’s are just a realm between life and permanent death.
All that matters is that Jesus Christ is the only way to the Father and that he is the only truth. And that the only way to be saved is to simply believe that Jesus is the Christ who has given you eternal life as a free gift of grace.
"Tollhouses" is Purgatory but worse, because at least Purgatory promises an ending.
Universalism, Reincarnation are not Biblical