What do you suggest as a response to the following?

I wrote this: When we die, we go to Hades, which is a realm above the evil-doers, and it consists of Paradise and Torment. Good, Christ-loving spirits are in Paradise; evil ones go to Torment.

He wrote this: When we die, we go to the Judgment Seat, unbelievers as well.

I wrote this: Heaven is yet another realm above Hades where God and Jesus are with the angels.

He responded with: Hades is hell, and heaven is heaven.

My question is, I thought Hades was where paradise and torment are. Also, I didn't think we'd immediately be before God upon death?

Sincerely,
Habeas Corpus

Dear Habeas Corpus,

The easiest way to prove that Hades is not the same as hell is to compare two verses concerning Jesus:

1. It was prophesied that Jesus would go to Hades, but not remain there (Acts 2:25-32)
2. Jesus said that after He died at the crucifixion, He would be in Paradise (Lk 23:43)

The only way to reconcile these two verses is if Paradise is a place in Hades.  The other thing to consider is that Hades (which means 'the unseen place' in Greek) is the Greek word for 'Sheol' (Sheol is a Hebrew word used in the Old Testament).  In fact, when the Greeks translated the Old Testament into the Greek language (The Greek Old Testament is called the Septuagint, and even Jesus quoted from it), they used the word ‘Hades’ in place of the word ‘Sheol’.  The reason this is important is because it is VERY clear that ‘Sheol’ means ‘the place of the dead’.  Jacob said he would go to Sheol as he mourned the loss of his son (Gen. 37:35).  Jacob was a godly man, and it wouldn't make sense for him to say that he would go to hell in mourning.  ‘Sheol’ just means 'the place of the dead' - exactly like 'Hades'.

We will go to Paradise or torments directly at death, but there we, and even the angels, will wait for the great Day of Judgment (Jude 6).

Concerning your post "Should the Hip Hop Stop?" : is it scripturally wrong then to play hymns on musical instruments, such as Amazing Grace on bagpipes or violin without singing along? What about listening to Elvis' gospel album as a form of entertainment/personal enjoyment (I think he had a beautiful voice and like the songs)?

Sincerely, Graceland Groupie

Dear Graceland Groupie,

With or without vocal accompaniment, the rules are the same. Please make sure to read “Should the Hip Hop Stop?” for our full explanation of this subject. If instrumental religious music is performed as worship, it is wrong. If it is played simply for entertainment, it is perfectly permissible (as long as it follows the guidelines we outlined in the previous post). God asks for our worship to be acappella (Eph 5:19). Incidentally, the word ‘acappella’ means ‘as the church’ because the early church never used instruments in their worship. Instruments weren’t introduced into worship services until the sixth century. The church of the first century understood that when God asked for them to sing – that meant they shoul only sing. If we begin to add to God’s worship service, we are adding to God’s commands and teachings (Deu 12:32, Rev 22:18).

As far as the question about Elvis’ gospel album – the same rules would apply to him as any other religious musician. He may have been the “King of Rock ‘n’ Roll”, but the “King of Kings” still has more authority (1 Tim 6:15).

I was baptized as an infant in my parents' church.  I know that baptism is supposed to be an (adult) individual's decision to follow the calling of God and to repent of an (adult) individual's sin.  Still, I can't help but think that my baptism was at least partially valid since it was done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  If/when I get baptized as an adult, could it be a baptism that is done just to make sure I'm saved - so not necessarily to be re-baptized, but as a just-in-case?

Sincerely, Not A Little Kid Anymore

Dear Not A Little Kid Anymore,

There is no authority or example of infant baptism in the Bible. Infant baptism does nothing but get the child wet (and often crabby). The fact that it was done “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” doesn’t make a difference. To do something ‘in the name of God’ is to proclaim that you are doing it by the authority of God. Many people proclaim to do things by God’s authority and yet are completely wrong. Jesus Himself said that many people will say that they had God’s authority and yet will be rejected by God on the Day of Judgment (Matt 7:21-23). Infant baptism is a great example of this principle. God never condones or commands infants to be baptized, and yet (sadly) many, many churches do it and claim that they do it by God’s authority. Infant baptism is a false teaching, pure and simple. It ignores the authority of the Scriptures (1 Jhn 4:6).

Biblical baptism is for those capable of repenting (Acts 2:38). It is an adult decision and is a requirement for salvation (1 Pet 3:21, Mk 16:16). This is the only baptism that can truly be said is done “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” (Matt 28:19). If someone has been baptized in this way, they never need to be re-baptized. If you haven’t been baptized in this way… you never were really baptized into Christ’s baptism in the first place.

Assuming you were baptized by immersion for the right reasons, is there ever a need to be re-baptized? What if there was a period you feel you were not living as a Christian?

Sincerely, Wanting To Be Sure

Dear Wanting To Be Sure,

If you were baptized right the first time (see this post for proper baptism guidelines) – then you don’t need to be baptized again, even if you fell away for a period of time. Consider the case of the man who got caught up in the disgusting sin of sleeping with his father’s wife (1 Cor 5:1). The church at Corinth was told to withdraw from that man (1 Cor 5:13). Later on, that same man repented and came back to the Lord. Paul told the church that they should forgive him and his prior punishment had been sufficient (2 Cor 2:6-8). If someone can get caught up in that sort of depraved fornication and not need to be re-baptized, I think we can confidently say that no one needs it.

If someone falls away from the Lord, they must repent and return to God (1 Jhn 1:9). When they draw near again to God, He will draw near to them (Jas 4:8).

Is it true that there is more than one human creator? The god of the Chinese, god of the Africans, god of the Jews…

Sincerely, National Beginnings

Dear National Beginnings,

There is only one God, and He created all of mankind. On the sixth day of creation, God made Adam & Eve (Gen 1:26). Eve is the mother of all humans (Gen 3:20). Throughout history, there have been many claims of different gods. From every nation and culture, there has arisen false gods and false creation stories. However, as Paul tells the Athenians, all such myths are from ignorance (Acts 17:30). The truth is that there is only one God, and He is Father of us all (Eph 4:6).