Expert: Sal - 4/7/2006

Question
I have an additional question about life after death or heaven and hell and would appreciate your input.  In your responses you had said that Samuel is in "Hades" and that heaven wasn't opened until after Jesus was resurrected but you also said that Moses and Elijah came to Jesus before his death on the cross now this is where I get lost...Elijah didn't die he was taken into the sky on a chariot of fire.  Where did he go and why was Moses with him if Moses did die?  Also what about Enoch?  Thank you again for any help you are able to give.  May God bless and keep you and yours.

-------------------------
Followup To
Question -
Thank you for your quick response, it is much appreciated.  Will you please help me to understand about the differences between our beliefs in baptism.  Also in Samuel 28:19 the spirit tells Saul that he and his sons will be with him, where he is, I was under the impression that Saul was evil, and also why would he be scared to be where Samuel is if Samuel was a prophet of God?  All of this is so confusing, I really want you to know that I appreciate the work you are doing here and am grateful for any light that you can shed on these subjects.  Are there any pamphlets or brochures you can send me?
Thanks again.


------------------------
Followup To
Question -
I am married to a SDA and we have a daughter together.  I grew up catholic but am not devout.  Me and my wife have been married for 7 years and when I wanted to have our daughter baptized my wife refused.  She convinced me based on what the bible teaches us about baptism, that it is a choice for us to repent and walk with the Lord and that baptism represents this repentence.  We have also discussed the question about life after death.  She was able to convince me that based on what the bible teaches that we do rest after we sleep and this is where my question comes in, you told another person you had biblical information that would prove other wise, as I have studied the bible I am unable to find anything that teaches that when we die we go to be with the father immediately.  Please send me the information that would justify my catholic beliefs based on what the bible teaches.  Me and my wife have agreed to let my daughter be raised SDA since she is more involved with her church then I am and because I am unable to prove that her beliefs are wrong.  I love my daughter and if I'm making the wrong choice I need to know.  Thank you.
Answer -
Dear A. Lozano:

The following are some passages that disprove that a person upon death is unconscious until the resurrection.

In the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) we read of the dead being conscious. In the face of this obvious contradiction to their theology, the SDA claim that this story is a parable; therefore, they do not have to consider what Jesus says as literally true. Even if one accepts this story as a parable, does it follow that one can dismiss what it says? The answer is: no. In what other parable does our Lord use a falsehood to teach truth? The answer is: none. So whether this story is a parable of not the fact remains that Jesus speaks of the dead as conscious, and he never used a falsehood to teach a truth.  

Another passage that shows that Jesus believed that the dead were conscious is found in the story of the Good Thief (Luke 23:39-43). Jesus indicates the consciousness of the dead with his statement, “I assure you: this day you will be with me in paradise” (v. 43). So strong and clear is this statement of our Lord that the SDA tries to manipulate the very words of our Lord. They make a slight, but important change. “I assure you today: you will be with me in paradise.”  It may be informative to know that no Bible scholar translates v. 43 in that manner. Firstly, it would be ridiculous of our Lord to be informing the Good Thief that he was speaking to him this day! Secondly, Jesus uses the phrase, “I assure you” (also translated as “Verily, verily”, “Truly, truly”, or “Amen, amen”) over 70 times in the gospels. Never once does he add to the phrase what day it is that he is speaking. He always uses the phrase followed by a promise or statement of fact. Therefore, the SDA has no legitimate grounds for changing the traditional rendering of this passage.

The two greatest Apostles, Peter and Paul, both believed in the consciousness of the dead. St. Peter tells us what Jesus did while his body lay in the tomb.

“He was put to death as far as earthly existence goes, but was given life in the realm of the spirit. It was in the spirit also that he went to preach to the spirits in prison” (I Peter 3:18b-19).

Peter relates that Jesus went to preach the gospel to those spirits in Hades who had died before his saving ministry began (see also 4:6). St. Paul believed that he would be with the Lord upon death. “I repeat, we are full of confidence and would much rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord” (II Corinthians 5:7). The nonsense of the SDA's position on soul sleep is highlighted by: “If on the other hand, I am to go on living in the flesh, that means productive toil for me-and I do not know which I prefer. I am strongly attracted by both; I long to be freed from this life and be with Christ, for this is a far better thing, yet it is more urgent that I remain alive for your sakes” (Philipians 1:22-24).  

Could anyone truly believe that St. Paul would consider it “ a far better thing” to be unconscious rather than to be preaching the saving message of his Lord? St. Paul is clear that he believed that upon death one would be “ at home with the Lord” not unconscious.

Even in the Old Testament that did not have the complete revelation (see Hebrews 1:1-2) we still see indications of knowledge of the consciousness of the dead. Isaiah relates how the dead in Hades react to the death of the King of Babylon. “The nether world below is all astir preparing for your coming…All of them speak out and say to you, ‘You too have become weak like us, you are the same as we'” (Isaiah 14:9-10).   Ezekiel relates a similar scene, “Then from the midst of the nether world, the mighty warriors shall speak to Egypt” (Ezekiel 32:20). Further, he tells us that the deceased Pharaoh sees and is comforted (v. 31).

An amazingly clear account of the consciousness of the dead occurs in I Samuel 28. Here the deceased Samuel appears to King Saul. This passage is so clearly opposed to the SDA position that they have taken to saying that Samuel really wasn't Samuel, but a demon. The text, however, does not even remotely support such an interpretation. The inspired author is extremely clear in his belief that Samuel was Samuel. For example, “When the woman saw Samuel…” (v. 12), “Samuel then said…” (v. 15), “To this Samuel said…” (v. 16), and “…shaken by Samuel's message” (v. 20). Since the inspired author is so clear we dare not hold a contrary opinion.

A later writer commenting on I Samuel 28 wrote, “Even while he (Samuel) lay buried, his guidance was sought, he made known to the king (Saul) his fate, and from the grave he raised his voice as a prophet, to put an end to wickedness” (Sirach 46:20).

One more passage which disproves Soul Sleep is Matthew 17:1-8. Here Jesus appears on the Mount of Transfiguration speaking to Elijah and Moses. While Elijah may not have died (see II Kings 2:11; I Maccabees 2:58), Moses certainly did. “So there, in the land of Moab, Moses, the servant of the Lord, died…” (Deuteronomy 34:5). Yet we read, “Suddenly Moses and Elijah appeared to them conversing with him” (Matthew 17:3). Once again the evidence is so strong against them that the SDA church resorts to an illogical, unbiblical attempt to keep their doctrine. They state that Moses must have been resurrected! This is no where found in the Bible.

I believe that these passages make it abundantly clear that the Bible doesn't support the SDA doctrine of Soul Sleep. It may be informative to know that whenever the Bible speaks of sleep in death it is speaking of the body never the soul. The body is in need of resurrection. Never does the Bible indicate that the soul will be resurrected. The body will be awakened from "sleep" when the conscious soul is reunited with it at the resurrection.

I hope that this is helpful to you. If I can help in any other way please do not hesitate to ask. Of course, I do believe that you are making a big mistake in allowing your child to be raised a non-Catholic. God gave us only one Church to help us to salvation and that Church is the Catholic Church founded by our Lord himself (Matthew 16:17-19).

God Bless You,
Sal



Answer -
Dear A. Lozano:

I'm sorry for the delay, but the Allexperts.com site was experiencing problems. So I could not send out answers for 3 days!

While it is true that there is no explicit command to baptize infants, it is implied and makes good sense. We know that circumcision was the entrance sign into the Old Covenant. “I point out once more to all who receive circumcision that they are bound to keep the law in its entirety” (Galatians 5:3). This sign was replaced in the New Covenant by baptism. “In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ. In baptism you were not only buried with him but also raised to life with him because you believed in the power of God who raised him from the dead” (Colossians 2:11-12). In the Old Covenant the males had to be circumcised in order to be members of the family of God. “This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you that you must keep: every male among you shall be circumcised. Circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and that shall be the mark of the covenant between you and me” (Genesis 17:10-11). So important was this sign that many Jewish Christians demanded that Gentiles converts be circumcised. “Some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved'” (Acts 15:1). The Council of Jerusalem determined that gentiles did not have to undergo circumcision. “But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will” (Acts 15:11). This decision was a confirmation of what St. Peter had already done in accepting the first Gentiles into the Church. “And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 10:48). Significantly, Peter did not command them to be circumcised. This is a very important fact that most not be overlooked.

So we have seen a number of parallels between each covenants entrance signs. Circumcision was replaced with baptism. Circumcision was necessary for salvation under the Old Covenant now it is baptism that is necessary. “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you…” (1 Peter 3:21; see also John 3:5 & Acts 2:38). There is one more parallel that we have not looked at yet. This parallel is extremely important for our study. When was circumcision ideally performed? “Throughout the ages, every male among you, when he is eight days old, shall be circumcised…” (Genesis 17:12). Circumcision could be performed on an adult convert, but it was ideally performed in infancy. I submit that it is the exact same way with baptism. It may be performed on adult converts, but it is ideally performed in infancy. Since babies were admitted into the family of God under the Old Covenant and the New Covenant is “a better covenant, founded on better promises” (Hebrews 8:6) shouldn't babies be admitted into the family of God under the New Covenant? If Christian babies could not enter God's family it would certainly not be a better covenant as far as the parents were concerned. This was the thinking of the early Church; therefore, babies have always been baptized into the Christian Church.

A couple of examples from the writings of the Church Fathers show this early and widespread practice. St. Irenaeus noted, “For He came to save all though means of Himself all, I say, who through Him are born again to God, infants, and children, and boys, and youth, and old men” (Against Heresies, A.D. 180). Origin wrote, “The Church has received from the Apostles the custom of administering baptism even to infants” (Commentary on Romans, A.D. 244).

While there are no explicit cases of infant baptisms we must note the explicit baptisms of entire families or households (Acts 16:15, 33; 1 Corinthians 1:16). These families would certainly be exception if they did not contain infants and children under the age of reason. No where do we read, “Whole families were baptized except for young children and babies.” The Church recognized that if God allowed babies into the Old Covenant, He could do no less in the New Covenant. Since baptism is the recognized means into the New Covenant infant baptism was the natural thing for the early Church to perform.

In Jesus' blessing of the little children (Luke 18:15-17) we can see support for infant baptism. Our Lord says, “Let the little children come to me. Do not hinder them. The reign of God belongs to such as these” (v. 16). As we have seen coming to the Lord is accomplished through the entrance sign of baptism.  “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body…” (1 Corinthians 12:13). St. Luke tells us explicitly that some of the little children that came to Jesus were babies (Luke 18:15).

Another passage that may lend support for infant baptism is St. Peter's Pentecost sermon.  He informs the crowd that they must repent and be baptized in order to receive the Holy Spirit. He then states, “It was to you and your children that the promise was made…” (Acts 2:39). The promise of the reception of the Holy Spirit was made even to the children. The Holy Spirit is usually given by means of baptism. It is interesting that the Bible does not give any examples of older children being baptized.

Remember that the writers of the New Testament were concerned with adult coverts to Christianity. That is the way that the Church began to grow. That is why we read much about adult baptism. That is also the reason that baptism is often linked with believing. “He who believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mark 16:16). This is absolutely true of adult converts, but it in no way precludes the baptism of infants as we have seen. As the adult converts began to have babies the Church confronted the issue of infant baptism. The result being that infant baptism is well attested to in the extra-biblical writings of the early Church.

I pray that this is helpful to you. If you wish to see pamphlets on infant baptism and other issues try the website for Catholic Answers (www.catholic.com).

If I can be of further help please do not hesitate to ask.

May God Bless You in Your Study,
Sal  

Answer
Dear A. Lozano:

Nice to hear from you again. Thanks for the very good questions! Where did Elijah go when he was taken? (2 Kgs. 2:11). My guess is he was taken away from there and later to Hades. When the Bible uses the term “heaven” it does not always mean the heaven where God is. There are three heavens in the Bible. The first heaven is the sky where the birds fly. The second heaven is where the planets and stars are located. The third heaven is where God resides. Elijah was taken into the air (first heaven). I believe that Elijah may have been taken to some other location on earth as happened to Philip in Acts 8:39-40. Then after Elijah died he went to Hades as did all people living under the Old Covenant.

As far as Elijah appearing with Moses there is no problem. Both were called up from Hades as was Samuel in 1 Sam. 28:12-15. If Elijah were alive in heaven that still would not cause any problem. He would descend to earth and be with Moses. God can accomplish it. My point in mentioning Matt. 17:1-3 is that the dead are not unconscious. Moses had died. I said that Elijah may not have died just as a concession to the SDA. I don't see any reason to argue with them over whether Elijah had died or not because Moses did die. Yet Moses appears with Elijah at the Transfiguration quit conscious.

Enoch is said to have been taken by God. “Then Enoch walked with God, and he was no longer here, for God took him” (Gen. 5:24). This has led many to conclude that Enoch did not die. Also the entire chapter is about the generations from Adam to Noah. After each person we read, “then he dies” (vv. 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, 27, 31). The absence of that phrase when Enoch is mentioned (v. 24) has led many to believe that Enoch did not experience death. Further we have this statement from St. Paul, “By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death…” (Heb. 11:5). This seems to indicate that he did not die, but was taken to the third heaven. However, this would not explain St. Paul's statement later in the same chapter, “These all died in faith” (v. 13). Apparently, “not see death” meant for St. Paul not losing faith and being damned, that is, not seeing the second death (Rev. 2:11; 20:6, 14; 21:8).  This would mean that Enoch was “taken” by God from this earthly existence as a reward for his righteousness. Enoch died and went to hades to await the opening of the third heaven by Jesus. Then after Jesus “went and preached to the spirits in prison” (1 Pt. 3:19) he led the righteous captives of Hades to heaven to be with God (Eph. 4:8).

I pray that this helped. If I can be of further help please let me know.

God Bless You,
Sal