Truth Magazine

By Steve Wallace

Luke 16:19-31 contain an inspired account of life after death. Both Lazarus and the rich man died. The Bible re- cords what happened to them afterwards. We, by faith, look at this and other inspired accounts to learn God’s teaching about the afterlife.

We are presently experiencing an explosion of information regarding another supposed source of knowledge about life after death: The Near Death Experience or NDE. In 1994 the recent history of the NDE was chronicled from the standpoint of books in print:

As a publishing phenomenon, it all began with Closer to the Light, written a few years ago by Melvin Morse. That book sold well and so was soon followed by his sequel, Transformed by the Light. Mr. Morse did not claim an otherworldly encounter himself but soberly catalogued the stories of hundreds of near-death cases. Next came the classic of the genre, Betty J. Eadie’s 1992 Embraced by the Light, so successful that even now it tops the bestseller lists. Then Saved by the Light, by Dannion Brinkley, also a bestseller. He sees Mrs. Eadie one up by having died not merely once but twice, returning each time with various prophesies we ignore, he warns, at our peril. And now we have Beyond the Light, by Phyllis Atwater, who has trumped Mr. Brinkley with a third trip to higher realms (The National Review, September 12, 1994).

Suffice it to say that it will help us if we prepare to confront the NDE phenomena in people to whom we try to teach the gospel. We will likely meet people who have been in some way influenced by it.

While NDEs of many people contain similarities it must be pointed out that researchers have found differences in almost every story in spite of similarities. Cases have been found where people had negative NDEs in which they imagined themselves in hell or in a very unpleasant place. Others have had NDEs that are compatible with the teachings of Hinduism. An atheist reported having an NDE and continued on in his unbelief after being resuscitated. In another case, a criminal who confessed to having killed two people had an NDE where he saw himself among saved people. Still another woman who had an NDE said that she now believes in reincarnation but not in God. Others have switched religions or become more religious. There is no consistent message from NDEs.

By contrast, the Bible speaks against the NDE as a source of knowledge about matters pertaining to God, the afterlife, and salvation. To show this we offer the following points:

1. Near death, not dead. People who have had NDEs were brought back from being clinically dead. They were clearly not dead in the Bible sense of the word (Jas. 2:26; Eccl. 12:7). Biblically, a person only dies once (Heb. 9:27). The Bible teaches that we go to the afterlife after death, not near death (Luke 16:19ff). Hence, reports from NDEs are similar to someone coming back from a ride in a balloon and telling what they saw on the moon!

In light of the above facts, the next point logically follows.

2. NDEs are born of one’s subjective feelings. They are not found in the Bible. The NDE is our age’s contribution to the “religious experience” common among denominationalism. For centuries, people have claimed to have had some sort of “salvation experience.” Today, people are simply going a step further, claiming not only to have been saved, but to have gone into the spirit-realm of saved beings. The same verses that answer the claimed “religious experiences” of our denominational friends answer the experiences claimed by those resuscitated from near death (Jer. 10:23; Prov. 16:25). God’s people should not let NDE claims bother them anymore than the traditional claims people have made in past. They all come from the same source: the mind of man.

3. People who claim to have had NDEs are not Christians! Do you know a N.T. Christian among the people claiming to have had a “positive” NDE? (I do know that one man who had such an NDE had killed two people!) How can a person who has had an NDE claim to have the comfort of the knowledge of salvation when God has said he has fallen short of what it takes to enter heaven (Matt. 7:21)?

4. Reports from NDEs are inconsistent with Bible cases of people returning from the afterlife. Paul was forbidden to reveal what he heard in “the third heaven!” (2 Cor. 12:1-7). Further, there is no account of any resurrected person — in either the O.T. or N.T. — telling what he experienced while dead! This is especially noteworthy when we consider the number of people raised from the dead in the Bible (1 Kings 17:17-24; 2 Kings 4:18-37; 13:20-21; Mark 5:35-43; Luke 7:11-16; John 11:1-54).

5. There is no value in those really dead returning. The rich man thought it would be a good thing if Lazarus went back from the dead and spoke with his five brothers. Abraham told him otherwise (Luke 16:26-31).

6. God communicates to us today through his word. The many books being written about NDEs and the messages of comfort they contain are like so many denominational creed books. They represent another gospel, separate and apart from that found in the N.T. (Gal. 1:8-9; 2 John 9-11). It is the gospel of Christ that holds the power of salvation for all men today (Mark 16:15; Rom. 1:16). Let us do our best to turn people away from the message of the NDE and to the inspired word of God.

Conclusion

There is only one credible testimony regarding what happens when we die. It is the Bible. In a precarious world, we are all potentially “near death.” Are you near heaven or hell? The Bible will both answer this question for you and tell you how to prepare to go to heaven and avoid hell.

There are people who go to church and talk as good a story as anyone; they contend for following the Bible in church work and worship; they may even preach from time to time and preach the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, nothing more, nothing less and nothing else, yet be as crooked as a barrel of snakes in their business dealings and seemingly have no compunction of conscience whatsoever. We have all known of church members, even preachers, who appear to be sound, but cheat on their wives, seemingly with no feeling of guilt, lie, don’t pay their debts, and otherwise violate God’s word. I have to say that preachers have told me more lies than anyone else! We read and hear of preachers and priests who molest little children, engage in homosexualism, steal money, fail to pay their debts, and commit other acts of ungodliness. Some of our own brethren seem to be model Christians, but abuse their wives and children, if not physically, mentally, by selfish- ness and unkindness. We see this and wonder: how can it be! Do these people not know better? Can they not see their inconsistency? What such people are doing is compartmentalizing their lives, whether they call it that, or realize what they are doing. They see their church work as one compartment of their lives, and their business, or private lives as another, and one does not interfere with or govern the other. I had a very able preacher friend who did excellent work. We worked together in gospel meetings and other projects on many occasions. Once he held an excellent meeting where I was preaching, and during that very meeting a woman other than his wife was pregnant with his child! How he could stand in the pulpit, much less preach, is a mystery. How he could associate with me, stay in my house, eat with my family, and talk of spiritual matters is difficult to understand unless he was compartmentalizing his life.

A brother wrote a well-known book as a professional historian in which he referred to the church of our Lord as a sect. When asked about it, he said he was writing as a professional historian. Many brethren were upset about it. I asked him would he have done it had he known the brethren would be so upset? He said, “Yes, he would, because he was writing as a professional historian.” Here is a concrete case of compartmentalizing. He stepped out of his role as a Christian and wrote as a professional historian. He didn’t take his Christianity with him. He thought he could do something as a professional historian that he couldn’t do as a Christian. He very likely would not stand in the pulpit and call the Lord’s church a sect, but he could sit at his typewriter as a professional historian and call it such! Compartmentalizing.

Pat Boone grew up as a Christian in Nashville, Tennessee. His family were all members of the church. He did some preaching as a young man. He recorded a song that made a hit, and he was off and running as an professional entertainer. As usual, Hollywood put him in the movies. Soon they wanted to cast him in a role where he would have to kiss the leading lady. He was reluctant to do so, but eventually justified it on the basis that he was not being disloyal to his wife, but was doing it as a professional actor. Compartmentalizing; he thought he could do something as a professional actor that he couldn’t do as a Christian.

Jesus called such people hypocrites. They are not what they claim to be or appear to be when they are in church or in the presence of Christians. It is well said that a hypocrite is one who is not himself on Sunday! Jesus warned, “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves” (Matt. 7:15). He said such people are like “whited sepulchers . . . which in- deed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness” (Matt. 23:27).

Jesus excoriated the Pharisees for saying and doing not; For “. . . tithing mint, anise and cumin, and leaving off the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy and faith.” Jesus said, “these ye ought to have done and not to leave the other undone” (Matt. 23). Like many today, the Pharisees had a polka dot hermeneutic, they believed the Bible in spots. They were very meticulous in bringing their “mint, anise and cumin” to the treasury of the temple, but in their private lives they ignored “justice, mercy and faith.” They were compartmentalizing.

We need to realize that if a person is not a Christian everywhere, he is not a Christian anywhere. Believest thou this? The Bible makes this very clear in such passages as 1 Corinthians 10:31: “Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.” “And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him” (Col. 3:17). “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven” (Matt. 5:16). “That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world” (Phil. 2:15). “In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths” (Prov. 3:6).

Our public officials today are involved in one moral scandal after another, reaching all the way to the White House! Using brute power to satisfy personal lust is the rule of the day in Washington as well as in the office, in the school, in the military, and in the factory. Listening to talk radio, reading letters to the editor, and following the various polls gives one a pretty good view of the state of public morals in this country, which today are in the gutter and despicable. Public reaction to the recent moral scandal involving the president, whether true or not, has brought to the surface compartmentalizing with a vengeance! Many people are saying, “What the president does in his private life has nothing to do with his ability to run the country. As long as he does a good job as president, it’s none of our business what he does in his private life.” (One lady said it is good to have an adulterous person in the White House!) People don’t re- ally believe this, but they think they do when it suits them or serves their purpose. What if in the president’s private life he committed murder, embezzled funds, beat his wife, abused his daughter, or got drunk as a skunk, or did drugs on weekends, etc. would these people say the same thing? This is a naive view of matters.

It is a failure or a refusal to realize that the character flaw that would cause a person to violate his marriage vow or otherwise act immorally or dishonestly, indicates that he is a dis- honest person who cannot be trusted in other compartments of his life. If one is less than honest or moral in his private life, what evidence do we have that he is otherwise in his public life, if it were to his advantage? If one will be dishonest or immoral to get what he wants in one compartment of his life, why not in another compartment, or in all compartments? This reminds me of a preacher who was answering questions from the audience. One person asked the preacher what he thought about a person who said he and his wife had been married for 30 years and had never had a cross word. The preacher answered, “You’d better watch a fellow like that because he will lie about others things too!” He who would steal an egg would steal an ox. We should realize that one is no better than his morals, and no worse than his principles.

The religion of Christ is called a vocation (a full-time job), not an avocation (a sideline or a hobby) (Eph. 4:1). It is not a Sunday coat but work clothes. He who is not a Christian everywhere, is not a Christian anywhere! 

(The following three selections underscore the importance of religious controversy. I have slightly edited these excerpts of longer articles and have given them new titles. “The Prince of Peace Never Sheathed the Sword of the Spirit” is taken from Alexander Campbell, “Religious Controversy,” Millennial Harbinger [4 Jan. 1830]:40-44. “I have Counted the Cost” is taken from Campbell, “The Rev. Thomas G. Jones and the Luminary,” The Christian Baptist [1 Dec. 1823):99 [reprinted by Gospel Advocate Co., 1955]. “The Only Safety for the Truth” is taken from J.W. McGarvey, “Bro. Hayden on Expedience and Progress,” Millennial Harbinger [Apr. 1868]:219. Submitted by Ron Halbrook, 654 Gray Street, West Columbia, TX 77486)

The Prince of Peace Never Sheathed The Sword of the Spirit

“Who of the Bible’s great and good men was not engaged in religious controversy! Whenever it was necessary, all — yes, all the renowned men of antiquity were religious controversialists. Moses long contended with the Egyptian magi. He overcame Jannes and Jambres too. Elijah encountered the prophets of Baal. Job long debated with the princes of Edom. The Jewish prophets and the idolatrous kings of Israel waged a long and arduous controversy. John the Harbinger, and the Scribes and Pharisees, met in conflict. Jesus, and the Rabbis, and the Priesthood, long debated. The Apostles and the Sanhedrin; the Evangelists and the Doctors of Divinity; Paul and the Sceptics, engaged in many a conflict; and even Michael fought in ‘wordy debate’ with the Devil about the body of Moses; yet who was more meek than Moses — more zealous for God than Elijah — more patient than Job — more devout than Paul — more benevolent than John?

“If there was no error in principle or practice, then controversy, which is only another name for opposition to error, would be unnecessary. If it were lawful, or if it were benevolent, to make a truce with error, then opposition to it would be both unjust and unkind. So long as it is confessed that error is more or less injurious to the welfare of society, individually and collectively considered, then no man can be considered benevolent who does not set his face against it. In proportion as a person is intelligent and benevolent, he will be controversial, if error exists around him. Hence the Prince of Peace never sheathed the sword of the Spirit while he lived. He drew it on the banks of the Jordan and threw the scabbard away. “Religious controversy has enlightened the world. It has enlightened men upon all subjects — in all the arts and sciences — in all things — philosophic, literary, moral, political. It was the tongue and pen of controversy which developed the true solar system — laid the foundation for the American Revolution — abolished the slave trade — and which has so far disenthralled the human mind from the shackles of superstition. Truth and liberty, both religious and political, are the first fruits of well-directed controversy. Peace and eternal bliss will be the ‘harvest home.’ Let the opponents of controversy, or they who controvert controversy, remember, that had there been no controversy, neither the Jewish nor the Christian religion could have ever been established; nor had it ceased could the Reformation have ever been achieved. It has been the parent of almost all the social blessings which we enjoy.

“When we love truth for its own sake, and when our efforts to maintain it proceed from brotherly kindness and love to all men, then we will plead its cause with force and with success; and then, and then only, will we be sanctified and blessed in the work. But a controversy for opinion, or for truth, instituted by vanity, by the pride of understanding, or the lust of power, will pollute the heart, aggravate the passions, sour the temper, and terminate in vain jangling. But because it has been abused shall we desist from the use of it? This would be to make a covenant with death, and an agreement with destruction. This would be to live in vain, and to die without honor. This would be to depart from the example of the Apostles of Jesus, and to renounce our allegiance to the King eternal, immortal, and invisible. For so long as error in principle and in practice exists, so long will it be the duty of the intelligent and the good to oppose it; and as long as there are conflicting creeds, sects, and divisions among religionists, so long will it be our duty to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints.

“To your posts, then, O Israel! Remember you have en- listed not for six months, like some of our sectarian militia; but you have vowed allegiance during the war. ‘Fight the good fight of faith.’ Keep your eyes upon the Captain; and when the conflict is over he will cover you with laurels which will never wither, and bestow upon you a crown of righteousness which fadeth not away.”

I Have Counted The Cost

(A “Rev.” Thomas G. Jones accused Alexander Campbell of being a troublemaker, “a sort of religious Ishmaelite,” one who caused division and opposed almost everything and everyone. Campbell responded in the following words.)

“I would say, as the Jews once said, ‘Let my right hand forget her cunning, and my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth,’ rather than I should oppose one word, one doc- trine, or one commandment of the Savior or his apostles.

But this I confess unto thee, Mr. Jones, that I do oppose, and will, by the grace of God, oppose, not only almost, but altogether, everything received as the Christian religion, not found in the New Testament, to the utmost of my ability and opportunity, at the risk of everything — of even offending Mr. Jones or any other reverend gentlemen. I have counted the cost, and put my hand to the plow, and while the Lord protects and enables me, I will not look back.”

The Only Safety for the Truth

(In 1868 A.S. Hayden suggested that brethren should be more flexible and tolerant toward such things as instrumental music in the name of expediency and progress. J.W. McGarvey responded as follows.)

“The loudest call that comes from heaven to the men of this generation is for warfare, stern, relentless, merciless, exterminating, against everything not expressly or by necessary implication authorized in the New Testament. Such is my unwavering conviction; and my only regret is, that I cannot fight this fight as it should be fought.

“In conclusion, let me add, that if any brother who reads this sees fit to style me intolerant, dictatorial, or self con- sequent, I say to him that I claim to be nothing more than one plain disciple of Christ, and to exercise a prerogative which belongs to us all. It is my duty to find fault with everybody and everything that is wrong; and it is equally the duty of every other brother. In the full and free performance of this task, lies the only safety for the truth. Error alone can suffer in such a warfare, and she alone is afraid of it. If I have struck one blow amiss, let it be returned on me double, and it will be well.”