Dr. Hugh Ross

[Silvertusk]

I started reading this thread - and too behonest I had to stop as I was getting really angry. It really annoys me that Christians waste so much of their time debating this issue YEC vs OEC and question each others salvation in the process. It is so obvious to me that the Bible is NOT a science book. As far as I am concerned - You can tie YEC into Genesis, OEC into Genesis, Day Age, and Theistic Evolution. No one should be able to claim full authority on scripture that is not essential to salvation. No one should be saying to another Christians that because they dont beleive that the earth was created in 6 days then they are not Christians, or are not saved.

Genesis - to me was a real stumbling block - but now I can see that every interpretation can be read into it. So what I do is look at Gods other relevation - Nature and see what that says. Science to me says that the universe is 14 billions years old and the earth is 4.5 billion. I think it would be decitful of God to declare that the the Earth is 6000 years old then try and trick us with false science to "Test our faith".

I have to thank people like Hugh Ross and Richard Deem for literally saving my soul (with the help of the Holy Spirit of course). Is that a bad thing? Should their salvation or intentions be cause into question because of their interpretation of Genesis. No.

I do not have a problem with YEC's either - Do I agree with them - No. Do I think they are saved? Yes of course.

What really makes my blood boil is some of the comments that have come from AiG against people like Hugh Ross - almost declaring then to be guided by the devil becuase of their interpretation. What utter tosh. They should look to themselves and realise that they are judging people with planks in their eyes. Christians spend too much time bickering over what is essentially irrelevant to salvation and not enough time worrying about the people who don't believe in the Gospel full stop. Direct your efforts there.

Dont get me wrong - I love the debate - but a debate is all it is - it is not a spiritual war if someone believes the earth is actually 4.4 billion years old. It just makes interesting debate.

Sorry for the rant - and I apologise in advance if I have offended everyone.

Silvertusk

[Dazed and Confused]

Dont get me wrong - I love the debate - but a debate is all it is - it is not a spiritual war if someone believes the earth is actually 4.4 billion years old. It just makes interesting debate.

In some aspects it is a spiritual battle. I only had one opportunity to witness to my father, who was an archeologist and had a degree in anthropology. I used the YEC argument to witness to him because of his background and education. Needless to say all I did was confirm in his mind the fairy tale nature of the bible. I won't get that second chance to witness to him again. If I had presented him the truth of scripture perhaps... To me it is a spiritual battle and some of the leading YEC proponents are without honor.

[Silvertusk]

Dont get me wrong - I love the debate - but a debate is all it is - it is not a spiritual war if someone believes the earth is actually 4.4 billion years old. It just makes interesting debate.

In some aspects it is a spiritual battle. I only had one opportunity to witness to my father, who was an archeologist and had a degree in anthropology. I used the YEC argument to witness to him because of his background and education. Needless to say all I did was confirm in his mind the fairy tale nature of the bible. I won't get that second chance to witness to him again. If I had presented him the truth of scripture perhaps... To me it is a spiritual battle and some of the leading YEC proponents are without honor.

I am very sorry to hear that.

This is the trouble with using arguements to witness to someone that is not backed up by Gods other revelation - science. I was not going to say this - but even though I do not have a problem with YEC's and still think they are saved - their doctrine of a young earth is very dangerous. Because it does not hold up to any Science (Which I genuinely believe is Gods way of show us the beauty of his creation) people who are indoctrined by it and are then exposed to proper science in the universities are more likely to lose their faith. Another soul is lost. Christian Faith is Reasonable faith. I have faith that science will never contradict anything in the Bible and so far I feel that it hasn't. God wants us to know the universe - God wants us to know the beauty of his creation - he does not want to decieve us with "Tests of Faith".

I knew a YEC at an old work place who would argue with me that because I did not believe the earth was 6000 years old- I could not be saved - This is dangerous and this is the devil speaking. He really needed to read his Bible properly and not deliberately turn people away from Christ.

Again the usual disclaimer- Apologies if I have offended anyone as I know this is a touchy subject.

[BavarianWheels]

In some aspects it is a spiritual battle. I only had one opportunity to witness to my father, who was an archeologist and had a degree in anthropology. I used the YEC argument to witness to him because of his background and education. Needless to say all I did was confirm in his mind the fairy tale nature of the bible. I won't get that second chance to witness to him again. If I had presented him the truth of scripture perhaps... To me it is a spiritual battle and some of the leading YEC proponents are without honor.

That's heavy.
.
.

[Jac3510]

It's amazing that you guys can't seem to agree on a position . . .

Yet Jesus is fully God, so I think that would alter the equation somehow. I can see that death might be an enemy to Jesus because it affects those created in His image. But I don't see how death can be an enemy to God, directly speaking of course, it just doesn't make sense to me. Can God die?

Jesus is God
Jesus died
Therefore, God died.

Yes, God died. We can get into philosophical discussions about the nature of Christ, but it's pretty clear that God died. Death is God's enemy. Everything not of Him is His enemy. Death is not of God. It is of sin. Of course, that's part of the problem I have with OEC, because it does make death come from God, which means OEC must either argue that sin is of God or that death is not of sin. Again, not positions I would want to be stuck defending.

And we know that in the day Adam ate the fruit that he died for that was what God promised. Adam and Eve were cast out of the earthly paradise God created, and they both lost the spiritual relationship they had with God. Romans 5:12 also has it that death entered the world through sin...

Now I'm happy for all these verses to apply to physical death (except Genesis where Adam and Eve didn't die a physical death in the very day they ate the fruit), as long as they are restricted to their context of humanity. Certainly human death only entered after the fall, and if it were possible for the fall to not happen and it did not happen, then I'm sure humanity would have been sustained by God. So this poses no problem to the Day-Age position which only necessitates animal/non-human death existed prior to the fall.

On the other hand, it might pose a problem as you say to a larger truth statement that human physical death is not necessarily evil. However, what is more evil - that our physical body be destroyed, or that our spiritual body be destroyed? One allows us to interact within our physical world, the other allows us to interact with God. We are told not to fear physical death, but to fear God who can destroy both our body and soul (Matt 10:28). Thus, spiritual death is the far greater enemy between us and God, however Jesus' work allows us to be spiritually "born again" which somewhat reinstates our relationship to be more fully experienced after we physically die.

It is also obvious Paul did not see physical death necessarily as a bad thing: "For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain... Yet what shall I choose? I do not know! 23I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; 24but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body." (Phil 1:21-24)

1. For arguments on Rom 5:12, see the thread on carnivorous animals.
2. I must be misunderstanding your second part. It looks like you are arguing that spiritual death is more evil that physical death. Even granting that, you are still granting that physical death is evil . . .
3. In any case, 1 Cor 15, as referenced, directly says that death is the enemy of Jesus. Unless you believe that people will die in the Resurrection (the context of the verse), then you have to recognize that physical death is in view. Thus, physical death is evil anyway.

You mean 1 Corinthians 15:26? It does not support the view that all death (in nature) is the result of sin.

Assertions arguments do not make.

How so? We all die don't we?

Because of sin.

And what of the other tree? Eternal life was only available to them through the supernatural “tree of life” in the Garden of Eden, Genesis 3:22. That is why they were forced out of the garden. Why would there be a tree of life in the garden if they would have lived forever anyway?

Gen 3:22 does not say that "Eternal life was only available to them through the supernatural “tree of life”." It only says that if they were to eat of the tree of life, then they wouldn't die. Those are not at all the same statements. I would encourage you to look at all the other verses in the Bible that mention the ToL: Proverbs 3:18; 11:30; 13:12; Proverbs 15:4; Revelation 2:7; 22:2; 22:14. Look at what all of those have in common. The life there is qualitative, not quantitative. It seems that the ToL is reserved for those who already have eternal life, precisely because if someone who did not have it were to eat of it, they would live forever in their fallen state. So . . . again . . . do you actually think that Adam and Eve would have died physically had they not sinned?

I don't agree that physical death in humans is evil..

Next time you attend a funeral, tell the grieving family that an evil has not befallen them. I'd be interested to hear their response.

To me it is a spiritual battle and some of the leading YEC proponents are without honor.

That's a very harsh claim, DnC. Do you think it is honorable to be so judgmental?

[Kurieuo]

And we know that in the day Adam ate the fruit that he died for that was what God promised. Adam and Eve were cast out of the earthly paradise God created, and they both lost the spiritual relationship they had with God. Romans 5:12 also has it that death entered the world through sin...

Now I'm happy for all these verses to apply to physical death (except Genesis where Adam and Eve didn't die a physical death in the very day they ate the fruit), as long as they are restricted to their context of humanity. Certainly human death only entered after the fall, and if it were possible for the fall to not happen and it did not happen, then I'm sure humanity would have been sustained by God. So this poses no problem to the Day-Age position which only necessitates animal/non-human death existed prior to the fall.

On the other hand, it might pose a problem as you say to a larger truth statement that human physical death is not necessarily evil. However, what is more evil - that our physical body be destroyed, or that our spiritual body be destroyed? One allows us to interact within our physical world, the other allows us to interact with God. We are told not to fear physical death, but to fear God who can destroy both our body and soul (Matt 10:28). Thus, spiritual death is the far greater enemy between us and God, however Jesus' work allows us to be spiritually "born again" which somewhat reinstates our relationship to be more fully experienced after we physically die.

It is also obvious Paul did not see physical death necessarily as a bad thing: "For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain... Yet what shall I choose? I do not know! 23I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; 24but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body." (Phil 1:21-24)

1. For arguments on Rom 5:12, see the thread on carnivorous animals.
2. I must be misunderstanding your second part. It looks like you are arguing that spiritual death is more evil that physical death. Even granting that, you are still granting that physical death is evil . . .
3. In any case, 1 Cor 15, as referenced, directly says that death is the enemy of Jesus. Unless you believe that people will die in the Resurrection (the context of the verse), then you have to recognize that physical death is in view. Thus, physical death is evil anyway.

Re: 1, I am fully aware YECs read more into this text to apply death universally to creation, when a plain reading has mankind in mind.

Re: 2, I am granting that physical death can be evil, but I am not granting it is only evil.

You are arguing that physical death is only evil. Paul who wrote 1 Corinthians evidentally does not see physical death as always evil (Phil 1:21-24). In one sense, yes physical death is our enemy. In another, it is completely natural and intended by God as it is all apart of His plan. If it were not apart of His plan, then God is not omnipotent for He could not maintain His plan.

Re: 3 - 1 Cor 15, Christ's death via His crucifixion was used as a weapon by Satan to try and destroy Him and put Him to shame as a false prophet. Indeed the penalty of false prophets is death and this is likely what the apostles would have been thinking as they left his crucifixion broken-hearted. Yet, Christ conquered death and beat Satan at his own game, and in His resurrection Christ is justified and now the justifier of those who believe. I absolutely agree with you that 1 Cor 15 needs to be taken in context, but declaring physical death an enemy of Christ is very different to universally declaring physical death an enemy of Christ or us all. Again, Paul who wrote 1 Cor 15 evidentially sees some good in physical death.

[Jac3510]

Re: 1, I am fully aware YECs read more into this text to apply death universally to creation, when a plain reading has mankind in mind.

It seems to me that the plain meaning has the whole world in mind. Do remember that the basic meaning of kosmos is the actual world; the world of humanity is a derived meaning. Possible, for sure, but not the plain reading. And the overall context makes it far less likely, in my view, anyway.

Re: 2, I am granting that physical death can be evil, but I am not granting it is only evil.

You are arguing that physical death is only evil. Paul who wrote 1 Corinthians evidentally does not see physical death as always evil (Phil 1:21-24). In one sense, yes physical death is our enemy. In another, it is completely natural and intended by God as it is all apart of His plan. If it were not apart of His plan, then God is not omnipotent for He could not maintain His plan.

1. Can you distinguish what makes it evil sometimes and not others?
2. Are you arguing that God can't use something that is evil for good, or that just because God uses something, it must therefore actually be good?

Re: 3 - 1 Cor 15, Christ's death via His crucifixion was used as a weapon by Satan to try and destroy Him and put Him to shame as a false prophet. Indeed the penalty of false prophets is death and this is likely what the apostles would have been thinking as they left his crucifixion broken-hearted. Yet, Christ conquered death and beat Satan at his own game, and in His resurrection Christ is justified and now the justifier of those who believe. I absolutely agree with you that 1 Cor 15 needs to be taken in context, but declaring physical death an enemy of Christ is very different to universally declaring physical death an enemy of Christ or us all. Again, Paul who wrote 1 Cor 15 evidentially sees some good in physical death.

So you agree that physical death is an enemy of Christ. You said that to be an enemy of Christ is to be evil. Are you saying, now, that physical death, although an enemy of Christ, isn't evil? Which statement would you like to clarify, because I don't follow you.

[Dazed and Confused]

That's a very harsh claim, DnC. Do you think it is honorable to be so judgmental?

I wouldn't consider it being judgmental just factual. I think someone telling me I need to repent before God or I have no salvation because I don't agree with their six day cause as being harsh and judgmental, among other points. So then would you say that someone making these type of claims based solely on my creation stance an honorable person? I meant what I said with all meekness and trembling before the Lord. He knows all that I have gone through concerning this issue and of course He knows my heart.

[Dazed and Confused]

Again the usual disclaimer- Apologies if I have offended anyone as I know this is a touchy subject.

No apologies necessary here. I just spent several years of my life posting on atheist forums. Compared to that, this place is like a pleasant day at the beach. The sun is in full strength, the waves are toasty and my girls are building sandcastles!

[Kurieuo]

LOL - we seem to be responding to each other as we are revising our responses.

Re: 1, I am fully aware YECs read more into this text to apply death universally to creation, when a plain reading has mankind in mind.

It seems to me that the plain meaning has the whole world in mind. Do remember that the basic meaning of kosmos is the actual world; the world of humanity is a derived meaning. Possible, for sure, but not the plain reading. And the overall context makes it far less likely, in my view, anyway.

I guess we can at least understand each other, and walk away is disagreement.

Re: 2, I am granting that physical death can be evil, but I am not granting it is only evil.

You are arguing that physical death is only evil. Paul who wrote 1 Corinthians evidentally does not see physical death as always evil (Phil 1:21-24). In one sense, yes physical death is our enemy. In another, it is completely natural and intended by God as it is all apart of His plan. If it were not apart of His plan, then God is not omnipotent for He could not maintain His plan.

1. Can you distinguish what makes it evil sometimes and not others?
2. Are you arguing that God can't use something that is evil for good, or that just because God uses something, it must therefore actually be good?

Re: 1, physical death is something many of us dread. Then again, some welcome physical death. Yet, in the context of this world only death can be seen as our enemy since we can't stop it. In the context of God's plan it is not at all our enemy but a stepping stone into either something far greater, or expulsion from by God if you reject Christ. To those who would perish, death would only been seen as evil, to those who have life it is seen as something to look forward to, to God death is just an outworking of His intended plan.

Re: 2, God can conquer evil with good, however such evil must have been apart of God's plan. If God uses something evil, that does not make that something good.

With humanity, it was apart of God's plan to allow us the freedom to choose good or evil actions in order to have a fuller loving relation with us. Yet, in death, limits are placed on the amount of evil a person and people can do. Is this not the reason given in Scripture as to why lifespans were decreased from 1000 years to much less after the flood? To limit the evil in the hearts of humanity. There is even here some good to death in God's created natural order.

On the other hard, I find it hard to fathom a reason other than death being apart of God's intended plan, as to how physical death was able to impose itself upon God's creation.

Re: 3 - 1 Cor 15, Christ's death via His crucifixion was used as a weapon by Satan to try and destroy Him and put Him to shame as a false prophet. Indeed the penalty of false prophets is death and this is likely what the apostles would have been thinking as they left his crucifixion broken-hearted. Yet, Christ conquered death and beat Satan at his own game, and in His resurrection Christ is justified and now the justifier of those who believe. I absolutely agree with you that 1 Cor 15 needs to be taken in context, but declaring physical death an enemy of Christ is very different to universally declaring physical death an enemy of Christ or us all. Again, Paul who wrote 1 Cor 15 evidentially sees some good in physical death.

So you agree that physical death is an enemy of Christ. You said that to be an enemy of Christ is to be evil. Are you saying, now, that physical death, although an enemy of Christ, isn't evil? Which statement would you like to clarify, because I don't follow you.

The context of "physical death" being an enemy of Christ is that the crucifixion was intended by Satan to defeat Christ and put Him to shame as a false prophet. This is very different from physical death in a general sense being called Christ's enemy.

[Gman]

You mean 1 Corinthians 15:26? It does not support the view that all death (in nature) is the result of sin.

Assertions arguments do not make.

Jac... You are taking 1 Corinthians 15:26 out of context.. Death, in a way, is an enemy to the natural man. No one wants to die a physical death.. Do you? It is a hindrance to man's physical survival. But it is NOT evil. Nowhere in the text does it ever say that death is evil... Nowhere.

Think about it. If you call death evil, you could be calling God evil for ever instituting it.. Be careful..

Gen 3:22 does not say that "Eternal life was only available to them through the supernatural “tree of life”." It only says that if they were to eat of the tree of life, then they wouldn't die. Those are not at all the same statements. I would encourage you to look at all the other verses in the Bible that mention the ToL: Proverbs 3:18; 11:30; 13:12; Proverbs 15:4; Revelation 2:7; 22:2; 22:14. Look at what all of those have in common. The life there is qualitative, not quantitative. It seems that the ToL is reserved for those who already have eternal life, precisely because if someone who did not have it were to eat of it, they would live forever in their fallen state.

Oh I don't think so.. Those verses say nothing about the tree of life in the Garden of Eden. They are if anything metaphoric.

So . . . again . . . do you actually think that Adam and Eve would have died physically had they not sinned?

Yes I do.. Why? Mainly over population. The earth clearly only has so much space.. There is a point where the earth would stop supporting so much physical life, not to mention all the animals. God is clearly in the CREATION business.. He wants more humans on the planet, but there is a problem. The earth can only hold so many people. So in order to stop this, is man going to stop breeding? I don't think so. God wants more people for His kingdom. The only way to get this is get more people born...

And besides.. If God didn't introduce physical death in the beginning, before the fall, then they couldn't have truly been instructed to be fruitful and "multiply" on the earth Genesis 1:28. He would have said, maybe you could multiply a little bit, but not much please..

I'm just asking you to think about it a bit..

Thanks..

[Gman]

Re: 1, physical death is something many of us dread. Then again, some welcome physical death. Yet, in the context of this world only death can be seen as our enemy since we can't stop it. In the context of God's plan it is not at all our enemy but a stepping stone into either something far greater, or expulsion from by God if you reject Christ. To those who would perish, death would only been seen as evil, to those who have life it is seen as something to look forward to, to God death is just an outworking of His intended plan.

Ooops.. Looks like we are saying the same thing here. I totally agree...

[Byblos]

It's amazing that you guys can't seem to agree on a position . . .

Yet Jesus is fully God, so I think that would alter the equation somehow. I can see that death might be an enemy to Jesus because it affects those created in His image. But I don't see how death can be an enemy to God, directly speaking of course, it just doesn't make sense to me. Can God die?

Jesus is God
Jesus died
Therefore, God died.

Yes, God died. We can get into philosophical discussions about the nature of Christ, but it's pretty clear that God died.

Very dangerous idea that absolutely destroys any kind of logical credibility for an eternal God. It is an argument used by many cults against the deity of Christ. But perhaps a topic for another thread.

[Jac3510]

I wouldn't consider it being judgmental just factual. I think someone telling me I need to repent before God or I have no salvation because I don't agree with their six day cause as being harsh and judgmental, among other points. So then would you say that someone making these type of claims based solely on my creation stance an honorable person? I meant what I said with all meekness and trembling before the Lord. He knows all that I have gone through concerning this issue and of course He knows my heart.

If you say so. I suppose you have fully removed the log from your own eye?

I'd also like to know where any YEC leader has ever said you have to believe in the YEC framework to be saved. Now you are just saying things that are flat untrue.

I just take this as further evidence of the divisiveness of OEC, and the further double standard you guys apply. You get angry when YECs make "divisive" statements, but engage in them just the same here. Like you said, God is your judge, not me, not anyone else.

LOL - we seem to be responding to each other as we are revising our responses.

I noticed. That was a confusing exchange for a few minutes!

I guess we can at least understand each other, and walk away is disagreement.

Which I think is totally fair. It's that whole disagree without being disagreeable, eh?

Re: 1, physical death is something many of us dread. Then again, some welcome physical death. Yet, in the context of this world only death can be seen as our enemy since we can't stop it. In the context of God's plan it is not at all our enemy but a stepping stone into either something far greater, or expulsion from by God if you reject Christ. To those who would perish, death would only been seen as evil, to those who have life it is seen as something to look forward to, to God death is just an outworking of His intended plan.

So if a person dies and goes to heaven, death isn't evil. But if a person dies and goes to hell, death is evil. Is that what you are saying?

Re: 2, God can conquer evil with good, however such evil must have been apart of God's plan. If God uses something evil, that does not make that something good.

Correct. So you would agree that just because Paul longed to be with Christ--since he was not when he wrote, thanks entirely to the Fall--and that just because Christ's death brought our salvation, that does not mean that either Paul's or Christ's death are good. They could, in fact, be evil that God is using for His purposes.

With humanity, it was apart of God's plan to allow us the freedom to choose good or evil actions in order to have a fuller loving relation with us. Yet, in death, limits are placed on the amount of evil a person and people can do. Is this not the reason given in Scripture as to why lifespans were decreased from 1000 years to much less after the flood? To limit the evil in the hearts of humanity. There is even here some good to death in God's created natural order.

So, again, you recognize that God can use an evil thing and actually bring good out of it. That doesn't make death good, though, or even neutral. It just shows how great God is.

On the other hard, I find it hard to fathom a reason other than death being apart of God's intended plan, as to how physical death was able to impose itself upon God's creation.

Because Adam sinned. That was the view of the early Jews. It was the view of the CFs. It's been the view of the church for centuries. I don't see why that is hard to accept. Do you see a logical inconsistency that we all missed for 1800 years?

The context of "physical death" being an enemy of Christ is that the crucifixion was intended by Satan to defeat Christ and put Him to shame as a false prophet. This is very different from physical death in a general sense being called Christ's enemy.

No . . . the text clearly says the "LAST ENEMY" to be defeated. Death has not yet been defeated. It will be at the new creation. If this were merely Christ's death that was the enemy, then death would have already been defeated . . . you could not call it the last enemy.

I'll say to you, with all due respect, the same thing I said to Gman: if you really and honestly think that death is not evil, then I would be very interested in the reaction of a grieving family when you tell them at their loved one's funeral that an evil had not befallen them.

Jac... You are taking 1 Corinthians 15:26 out of context.. Death, in a way, is an enemy to the natural man. No one wants to die a physical death.. Do you? It is a hindrance to man's physical survival. But it is NOT evil. Nowhere in the text does it ever say that death is evil... Nowhere.

Think about it. If you call death evil, you could be calling God evil for ever instituting it.. Be careful..

Funny . . . you tell me I am taking it out of context, and then you never mention the context at all. Again, assertions arguments do not make.

The context is the resurrection of mankind with specific reference to the resurrection of Christ. In THAT context, death is called the enemy of Christ which WILL BE defeated on the last day, at the general resurrection. If death is the enemy of Christ, then it is evil.

Oh I don't think so.. Those verses say nothing about the tree of life in the Garden of Eden. They are if anything metaphoric.

Fine, but every metaphor has a concrete meaning that underlies it. Where do you think they got the idea of the tree of life. Were they not thinking of Genesis 2-3? Are they, then, not looking at its qualitative aspects? Or do you actually believe that if we don't eat from that tree in the new creation that we will die there, too?

Yes I do.. Why? Mainly over population. The earth clearly only has so much space.. There is a point where the earth would stop supporting so much physical life, not to mention all the animals. God is clearly in the CREATION business.. He wants more humans on the planet, but there is a problem. The earth can only hold so many people. So in order to stop this, is man going to stop breeding? I don't think so. God wants more people for His kingdom. The only way to get this is get more people born...

I didn't know you were an ethical teleologist. So the end justifies the means? Death is good because it limits overpopulation? Do you support the forced abortion policies in China? Or if the world does become overpopulated, do you support the execution of people, say by lottery?

And besides.. If God didn't introduce physical death in the beginning, before the fall, then they couldn't have truly been instructed to be fruitful and "multiply" on the earth Genesis 1:28. He would have said, maybe you could multiply a little bit, but not much please..

How does this follow at all? I can't die, and therefore, I can't produce kids. What?

I'm just asking you to think about it a bit..

I have thought about it. A lot. What makes you think I haven't?

Very dangerous idea that absolutely destroys any kind of logical credibility for an eternal God. It is an argument used by many cults against the deity of Christ. But perhaps a topic for another thread.

Which you know is thoroughly handled by classical theism and a proper understanding of the hypostatic union. Those cults who use this argument also reject what the Church has said about Christ for 2000 years. I consider the alternative far worse. Are we, then, to argue that while Jesus was dead, He wasn't God anymore?

[DannyM]

Jesus is God
Jesus died
Therefore, God died.

Yes, God died. We can get into philosophical discussions about the nature of Christ, but it's pretty clear that God died. Death is God's enemy. Everything not of Him is His enemy. Death is not of God. It is of sin. Of course, that's part of the problem I have with OEC, because it does make death come from God, which means OEC must either argue that sin is of God or that death is not of sin. Again, not positions I would want to be stuck defending.

Jac,

God- *qua* God - didn't die on the cross. We can say that "God died on the cross" in a referring expression, indicating the subject, the person, about whom the assertion is being made. But to say Jesus, *qua* God (in the capacity of) died on the cross, is not correct, for here 'God' belongs to the predicative part of the proposition and has the role of signifying a nature. This is not God, in the full sense of the meaning.