Demolishing Triablogue: No, Steve, there are no ghosts, and no monsters under your bed

This is my reply to an article by Steve Hays entitled

Are there ghosts?

Question: "What does the Bible say about ghosts / hauntings?"

It provides contradictory and ambiguous information that has caused Christian scholars to consistently disagrees about it for centuries.  See, Charles R. Smith, "The New Testament Doctrine of Demons", Grace Journal, V10 #2:26–42—Spr 69—26

Perhaps this confusion exists in the church because Steve's Calvinistic God predestined many Christians by his secret will to disobey his revealed will that they teach doctrine correctly, and then predestined them to incorrectly feel solely personally responsible when they discovered their error.  Now isn't it obvious that the Calvinist god isn't the author of confusion (1st Cor 14:33)?

Answer: Is there such a thing as ghosts? The answer to this question depends on what precisely is meant by the term “ghosts.” If the term means “spirit beings,” the answer is a qualified “yes.”

Let's see your best case for establishing the existence of "spirit beings".

If the term means “spirits of people who have died,” the answer is “no.” The Bible makes it abundantly clear that there are spirit beings, both good and evil. But the Bible negates the idea that the spirits of deceased human beings can remain on earth and “haunt” the living.
 Hebrews 9:27 declares, “Man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment.” That is what happens to a person’s soul-spirit after death—judgment. The result of this judgment is heaven for the believer (2 Corinthians 5:6-8; Philippians 1:23) and hell for the unbeliever (Matthew 25:46; Luke 16:22-24). There is no in-between.

Lydia McGrew thinks there's a second chance after death for atheists who die somewhere between the apologetics lecture and the local library they are headed for in the effort to "check out" Christian claims.

There is no possibility of remaining on earth in spirit form as a “ghost.” If there are such things as ghosts, according to the Bible, they absolutely cannot be the disembodied spirits of deceased human beings.

not "absolutely". 1st Samuel 28, the witch of Endor brings up Samuel's ghost, and this ghost does not speak as a person opposed to the will of god, so the biblical author likely felt the apparition was Samuel's ghost.

The Bible teaches very clearly that there are indeed spirit beings who can connect with and appear in our physical world.

The trouble being that you couldn't prove such being exist to save your life.

The Bible identifies these beings as angels and demons. Angels are spirit beings who are faithful in serving God. Angels are righteous, good, and holy. Demons are fallen angels, angels who rebelled against God. Demons are evil, deceptive, and destructive. According to 2 Corinthians 11:14-15, demons masquerade as “angels of light” and as “servants of righteousness.” Appearing as a “ghost” and impersonating a deceased human being definitely seem to be within the power and abilities that demons possess. https://www.gotquestions.org/ghosts-hauntings.html

But 2nd Peter 2:4 says the angels who sinned are confined in pits of darkness to be reserved for the day of Judgment, contradicting the notion that they also, somehow, are free to run around on earth possessing people.  Since you don't describe demons as any other than "fallen angels", then you leave yourself no wiggle room to speculate that maybe some of the fallen angels were spared confinement.  No such exception is expressed or implied in 2nd Peter 2:4 and the reader would never have reason to suspect an exception exists.  Peter doesn't describe them further than as angels "who sinned".  So it is reasonable to assume Peter implied no exceptions for some sinful angels...leaving you with the theological bullshit of fallen angels who are confined under the earth and reserved for judgment, but who nevertheless freely run around on earth regardless (Matthew 12:43).  Peter's reference to Tartarus, a throwback to the literal underworld where Greeks believed bad gods were imprisoned, further prohibits inerrantists from trifling that these imprisoned fallen angels might be imprisoned in a way that still allows them to run around on earth.  Early Greek theogonic stories said the Titans and Cyclops imprisoned there couldn't get out.  Snip.

i) Elijah (1 Kgs 17) and Elisha (2 Kgs 4) raise the dead. But presumably, the children they restored to life were not immortal. So they died a second time. There's also the somewhat enigmatic statement about the revived corpse in 2 Kgs 13. But that might be another case of someone who's temporally revived, only to die a second time.
 In addition, Jesus raised the dead, viz. Lazarus (Jn 11), the daughter of Jairus (Lk 8), and the widow's son (Lk 7). Likewise, Peter raised the dead (Acts 9). More ambiguous is the case of Eutychus (Acts 20).
 Presumably, although these people were revived, they were still mortal. So they died a second time.

Then your presumption is wrong.  Jesus allegedly said his raising Lazarus from the dead was to demonstrate "resurrection".

 25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, (Jn. 11:25 NAU)

It is clear that Jesus is talking about a later resurrection, i.e., the type of resurrection that grants immortality.

So when he says he himself IS the resurrection, its pretty clear that he is saying he is the giver of immorality, and therefore, if he raised Lazarus to illustrate the teaching, then Lazarus' resurrection must be like the future resurrection of those who believed and died in faith, i.e., raised to immortal life, not raised to extended temporal life.

The only reason you resist saying Lazarus was resurrected in the sense the bible describes resurrected people with, is because an immortal Lazarus poses problems and inconvenience for biblical inerrancy.  But your theological convenience doesn't dictate what Jesus meant.  Snip.

v) Put another way, Heb 9:27 is not an absolute claim, but a statement about what happens to humans, all other things being equal. Yet it makes allowance for exceptions, all things considered. Like many unqualified statements in Scripture, it has an implicit ceteris paribus clause. If other conditions hold constant, if other factors remain unchanged, then that's what will happen. But in some cases, a different outcome is possible if there's a countervailing factor.

But such exceptions are not allowed by the context:

 24 For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;
 25 nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own.
 26 Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.
 27 And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment,
 28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him. (Heb. 9:24-28 NAU)

v. 28 is describing things that only happen once, absolutely; Christ's death and his 2nd coming, and describes them as an "also", linking their sense back to v. 27, thus, v. 27 is likely asserting in similarly absolute fashion that it is appointed unto man once to die, and under such absolute sense, contradicts other biblical accounts of those who managed to die twice.  Nobody said the biblical authors cared as much about bible inerrancy as you do.

13. What about the parable of Lazarus and Dives (Lk 16)?
 i) That's tricky because it's a fictional illustration, so the question is how much it is meant to illustrate. For instance, if you press the details, this would mean the damned can contact the saints. But do Christians who deny the existence of ghosts think that's generally the case? Can the denizens of hell initiate contact with the denizens of heaven whenever they feel like it? Is that realistic? Or is this an imaginary conversation between someone in "heaven" (Abraham) and someone in "hell" (the rich man) to illustrate whatever lesson(s) the parable is meant to teach?

So one of fundie Christianity's favorite eternal conscious torment passages is "tricky".  Let's just say the possibility of being tortured in hell forever is smartly dismissed as a clever way to scare gullible people into religion.  Not much more convincing than the empty threats at the end of Revelation for anybody who textually corrupts the book.   Just because you can convince a child the bogey man will "get them", doesn't mean that man exists.  It means not much more than your ability to use empty threats to frighten those who don't know better.