Dr. Hugh Ross

[Jac3510]

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.

Danny, I fully understand the philosophical underpinnings of the hypostatic union. The purpose of the philosophy is to explain how it could be that God died, given the definition of God. Obviously, your answer is near the answer we've always given. My point is far simpler. Yes, God died, in some sense of the word. Unless you want to argue that Jesus isn't really God or that Jesus stopped being God in death, etc., the fact is, the person called Jesus Christ--who is fully God--died. In that context, God died.

I've said nothing about God as He exists in His own nature--God qua God, as you call it. I am simply pointing to a simple answer raised by a simple question: yes, God died. That is, after all, what makes the Cross so profound.

[DannyM]

Danny, I fully understand the philosophical underpinnings of the hypostatic union. The purpose of the philosophy is to explain how it could be that God died, given the definition of God. Obviously, your answer is near the answer we've always given. My point is far simpler. Yes, God died, in some sense of the word. Unless you want to argue that Jesus isn't really God or that Jesus stopped being God in death, etc., the fact is, the person called Jesus Christ--who is fully God--died. In that context, God died.

I've said nothing about God as He exists in His own nature--God qua God, as you call it. I am simply pointing to a simple answer raised by a simple question: yes, God died. That is, after all, what makes the Cross so profound.

Jac, I understand that God, in some sense, died. But the real point is that death could not conquer God. I'm sorry if I've repeated something you are already aware of.

[Jac3510]

Of course death couldn't conquer God. That's the whole point of the Resurrection, isn't it? God will conquer death. In the context of our conversation, though, just because death doesn't stand a chance of conquering God doesn't mean it isn't His enemy. It is, again, opposed to His very nature, because His very nature is life itself.

So I go back to my original point.

That which is the enemy of Christ is evil.
Death is the enemy of Christ.
Therefore, death is evil.

The fact that you guys have to defend the idea that death isn't evil is your problem, not mine. Like I said before, I'm REALLY glad I don't have to defend it. It's something that all of humanity--even atheists--recognize. Ya know . . . that whole, pesky moral law written on our hearts thing :p

[Byblos]

Of course death couldn't conquer God. That's the whole point of the Resurrection, isn't it? God will conquer death. In the context of our conversation, though, just because death doesn't stand a chance of conquering God doesn't mean it isn't His enemy. It is, again, opposed to His very nature, because His very nature is life itself.

So I go back to my original point.

That which is the enemy of Christ is evil.
Death is the enemy of Christ.
Therefore, death is evil.

The fact that you guys have to defend the idea that death isn't evil is your problem, not mine. Like I said before, I'm REALLY glad I don't have to defend it. It's something that all of humanity--even atheists--recognize. Ya know . . . that whole, pesky moral law written on our hearts thing :p

Jesus conquered eternal death. Our physical death is a necessary step to gain eternal life and be with the Lord.

You believe in the doctrine of hell I presume so tell me Jac, those who will go to hell after the final judgment, will they be dead or alive?

[DannyM]

Of course death couldn't conquer God. That's the whole point of the Resurrection, isn't it? God will conquer death. In the context of our conversation, though, just because death doesn't stand a chance of conquering God doesn't mean it isn't His enemy. It is, again, opposed to His very nature, because His very nature is life itself.

So I go back to my original point.

That which is the enemy of Christ is evil.
Death is the enemy of Christ.
Therefore, death is evil.

The fact that you guys have to defend the idea that death isn't evil is your problem, not mine. Like I said before, I'm REALLY glad I don't have to defend it. It's something that all of humanity--even atheists--recognize. Ya know . . . that whole, pesky moral law written on our hearts thing :p

Jac, I don't see me having to defend a thing. Unless I've missed something; have I missed something?

[Jac3510]

Jesus conquered eternal death. Our physical death is a necessary step to gain eternal life and be with the Lord.

The text doesn't say that. It says that Jesus conquered death. It says that those who take place in the first resurrection are not hurt by the second death. It doesn't distinguish between "eternal" and "temporal" death. What it does say is that death is the last enemy to be defeated, making death an enemy of Jesus, making death evil.

Again, I really can't believe that people here are defending the notion that death is not evil. Look at the death all throughout the world . . . you don't see that as evil? Regarding our physical death being a necessary step to gain eternal life, I suggest that Scripture says otherwise. Both Elijah and Enoch received eternal life without suffering death, as will all believers who are of those who are alive at the coming of Christ. Death, rather, is an evil we suffer until Christ comes. That we pass from death to be with Christ is by His mercy and grace alone. As I pointed out to K, God can use evil to bring out good. That doesn't make the evil good.

You believe in the doctrine of hell I presume so tell me Jac, those who will go to hell after the final judgment, will they be dead or alive?

Yes. They will be forever separated from God (though in His presence all the same). They will be tormented forever. Dead yet conscious.

Jac, I don't see me having to defend a thing. Unless I've missed something; have I missed something?

You tell me. Do you acknowledge that death is evil?

[DannyM]

Jac, I don't see me having to defend a thing. Unless I've missed something; have I missed something?

You tell me. Do you acknowledge that death is evil?

Jac,

No.

[DannyM]

Jesus conquered eternal death. Our physical death is a necessary step to gain eternal life and be with the Lord.

The text doesn't say that. It says that Jesus conquered death. It says that those who take place in the first resurrection are not hurt by the second death. It doesn't distinguish between "eternal" and "temporal" death. What it does say is that death is the last enemy to be defeated, making death an enemy of Jesus, making death evil.

Jac, Romans 5:12 doesn't say 'physical' death, but you believe it refers to physical death, right?

[Jac3510]

Then you have a whole slew of things you have to defend.

You have to defend the notion that death is directly called the enemy of Christ and yet the enemy of Christ is not evil; you have to defend the notion that when a child dies, something evil has not happened; you have to defend the notion that all of humanity has been wrong since the beginning of time--including modern atheists--in asserting that death is evil; you have to defend the notion that God created the world "subjected to frustration", in "bondage to decay", and "groaning as in the pains of childbirth" (Rom 8:20, 21, 22).

Like I said, I'm just glad I'm not in your shoes. I'm glad that I don't have to defend the notion that death isn't evil. That's your problem, not mine. Frankly, of all the problems I have with OEC, this is the biggest. I have a moral problem with it, as it calls that which is evil good, or, at bare minimum, looks evil in the face and calls it something less.

Jac, Romans 5:12 doesn't say 'physical' death, but you believe it refers to physical death, right?

The Bible doesn't use the phrase "spiritual" or "physical" death anywhere. It always says 'death'. As I've said before, you have made too hard a distinction between the two in the first place. In any case, even maintaining that distinction, the context of Rom 5 is clearly physical death--and I can show you several 1st century Jewish quotes that take exactly the same view. Further, I can't help but note that no one ever responded to the hard linguistic data I noted. The evidence is overwhelming. The only way you can hold to spiritual death in Rom 5 (or that 'the world' refers only to mankind) is to blatantly ignore the rest of the book. Hmm . . . something else I'm glad I don't have to defend.

Likewise, the context of 1 Cor 15 is just as clear.

[DannyM]

Then you have a whole slew of things you have to defend.

You have to defend the notion that death is directly called the enemy of Christ and yet the enemy of Christ is not evil; you have to defend the notion that when a child dies, something evil has not happened; you have to defend the notion that all of humanity has been wrong since the beginning of time--including modern atheists--in asserting that death is evil; you have to defend the notion that God created the world "subjected to frustration", in "bondage to decay", and "groaning as in the pains of childbirth" (Rom 8:20, 21, 22).

Like I said, I'm just glad I'm not in your shoes. I'm glad that I don't have to defend the notion that death isn't evil. That's your problem, not mine. Frankly, of all the problems I have with OEC, this is the biggest. I have a moral problem with it, as it calls that which is evil good, or, at bare minimum, looks evil in the face and calls it something less..

Jac, all this "I'm glad I'm not in your shoes" bravado seems kind of strange. If I told you I was glad I'm in my shoes, would you perhaps see that, actually, it's not too bad over here? There seems to be an assumption that you've somehow got us all tied up over this. I see no difficulties here at all. All I see is bravado from your end.

Jac, Romans 5:12 doesn't say 'physical' death, but you believe it refers to physical death, right?

The Bible doesn't use the phrase "spiritual" or "physical" death anywhere. It always says 'death'. As I've said before, you have made too hard a distinction between the two in the first place. In any case, even maintaining that distinction, the context of Rom 5 is clearly physical death--and I can show you several 1st century Jewish quotes that take exactly the same view. Further, I can't help but note that no one ever responded to the hard linguistic data I noted. The evidence is overwhelming. The only way you can hold to spiritual death in Rom 5 (or that 'the world' refers only to mankind) is to blatantly ignore the rest of the book. Hmm . . . something else I'm glad I don't have to defend.

Likewise, the context of 1 Cor 15 is just as clear.[/quote]

I find all of this quite bizarre. You're placing a straw-man, i.e your own terms, applying them to the context of Rom 5, and simply walking along, whistling away and knocking him down. On *your* terms I'm sure everything looks so crystal clear. You, for example, think I have made too hard a distinction between phsical and spiritual death. I, on the other hand, think you are making too *little* distinction between physical and spiritual death. And you know what? The context of Romans 5 is clearly focused predominantly on spiritual death.

And I really couldn't give a brass farthing what some 1st century Jewish scholar thought about it- if he was wrong then he was wrong. It's all about one's interpretation. Mine is no greater than yours and yours is no greater than mine. Or is it ... ?

[Byblos]

You believe in the doctrine of hell I presume so tell me Jac, those who will go to hell after the final judgment, will they be dead or alive?

Yes. They will be forever separated from God (though in His presence all the same). They will be tormented forever. Dead yet conscious.

Yes, what? Are they dead or alive? If they're dead then both the doctrine of hell as well as the physical resurrection make no sense. And if they're alive then physical death is not evil as even people in hell will have benefited from it having been made alive again. So which is it?

[DannyM]

Then you have a whole slew of things you have to defend.

You have to defend the notion that death is directly called the enemy of Christ and yet the enemy of Christ is not evil; you have to defend the notion that when a child dies, something evil has not happened; you have to defend the notion that all of humanity has been wrong since the beginning of time--including modern atheists--in asserting that death is evil; you have to defend the notion that God created the world "subjected to frustration", in "bondage to decay", and "groaning as in the pains of childbirth" (Rom 8:20, 21, 22).

Like I said, I'm just glad I'm not in your shoes. I'm glad that I don't have to defend the notion that death isn't evil. That's your problem, not mine. Frankly, of all the problems I have with OEC, this is the biggest. I have a moral problem with it, as it calls that which is evil good, or, at bare minimum, looks evil in the face and calls it something less..

Jac, all this "I'm glad I'm not in your shoes" bravado seems kind of strange. If I told you I was glad I'm in my shoes, would you perhaps see that, actually, it's not too bad over here? There seems to be an assumption that you've somehow got us all tied up over this. I see no difficulties here at all. All I see is bravado from your end.

Jac, Romans 5:12 doesn't say 'physical' death, but you believe it refers to physical death, right?

The Bible doesn't use the phrase "spiritual" or "physical" death anywhere. It always says 'death'. As I've said before, you have made too hard a distinction between the two in the first place. In any case, even maintaining that distinction, the context of Rom 5 is clearly physical death--and I can show you several 1st century Jewish quotes that take exactly the same view. Further, I can't help but note that no one ever responded to the hard linguistic data I noted. The evidence is overwhelming. The only way you can hold to spiritual death in Rom 5 (or that 'the world' refers only to mankind) is to blatantly ignore the rest of the book. Hmm . . . something else I'm glad I don't have to defend.

Likewise, the context of 1 Cor 15 is just as clear.

I find all of this quite bizarre. You're placing a straw-man, i.e your own terms, applying them to the context of Rom 5, and simply walking along, whistling away and knocking him down. On *your* terms I'm sure everything looks so crystal clear. You, for example, think I have made too hard a distinction between phsical and spiritual death. I, on the other hand, think you are making too *little* distinction between physical and spiritual death. And you know what? The context of Romans 5 is clearly focused predominantly on spiritual death.

And I really couldn't give a brass farthing what some 1st century Jewish scholar thought about it- if he was wrong then he was wrong. It's all about one's interpretation. Mine is no greater than yours and yours is no greater than mine. Or is it ... ? [/quote]

[RickD]

Jac, does it say somewhere in the bible that when a child dies it is evil? Or because people are mourning at a funeral, they are mourning because something evil happened to the one who died. I know unbelievers mourn differently than believers. My Dad died last Sept. and my family mourned because we'll miss him, not because his death was evil. I would say my Dad's knowing his death was imminent was actually the best thing that could have happened to him. He got his relationship with the Lord where it was supposed to be. I can see some ways someone is killed as being evil if that's what you're saying, but not physical death in general.

[Jac3510]

Jac, all this "I'm glad I'm not in your shoes" bravado seems kind of strange. If I told you I was glad I'm in my shoes, would you perhaps see that, actually, it's not too bad over here? There seems to be an assumption that you've somehow got us all tied up over this. I see no difficulties here at all. All I see is bravado from your end.

Twisted up is about the last thing I think you are. You've clearly stated over and over again that you don't think death is evil. People have a habit of rationalizing their sin. In the same way, your theological position requires you rationalize away death. Twisted up? Hah. You just simplistically declare it not evil and that all of humanity is just wrong about it and that's that. No, I think you are as about as twisted up in your view as hyper-Calvinists are about having to defend the notion that God gets glory by choosing to create people for the express purpose of sending them to Hell.

Morality is a funny thing. It's something that is in your face. You accept it or you don't. Those who don't have no qualms about ignoring it. That's just human nature.

I find all of this quite bizarre. You're placing a straw-man, i.e your own terms, applying them to the context of Rom 5, and simply walking along, whistling away and knocking him down. On *your* terms I'm sure everything looks so crystal clear. You, for example, think I have made too hard a distinction between phsical and spiritual death. I, on the other hand, think you are making too *little* distinction between physical and spiritual death. And you know what? The context of Romans 5 is clearly focused predominantly on spiritual death.

And I really couldn't give a brass farthing what some 1st century Jewish scholar thought about it- if he was wrong then he was wrong. It's all about one's interpretation. Mine is no greater than yours and yours is no greater than mine. Or is it ... ?

And again, if you choose to ignore historical evidence, then that is your problem. Something you would have to defend if you cared enough about defending your position rather than just repeating what you already believe. You can assert until you are blue in the face. In the end, all you have are your assertions. I have given you historical, linguistic, moral, and contextual evidence against your position at every turn, and you shrug your shoulders and ask me why you actually have to defend anything?

This is the reason I can't stand systematic theology. We get these theological propositions in our head that we must defend at all costs, and anything that doesn't line up with that proposition gets ignored.

Don't misunderstand me, Danny. I am under absolutely no illusion I'll ever change your mind. No one has ever changed your mind. That's true of all human beings. We change our minds when we choose to. The only reason I'm having these conversations is that I'm sick and tired of seeing this site mock YECs with the vitriol that they do. Your arguments aren't going to go unchallenged anymore. People--including you--can see for themselves what the real arguments are on both sides, and they can decide for themselves who is ignoring what.

AGAIN, I'm just glad that my position isn't one that has to say that an enemy of Christ isn't evil, that death isn't evil, that God created the world under bondage and decay, etc.

Yes, what? Are they dead or alive? If they're dead then both the doctrine of hell as well as the physical resurrection make no sense. And if they're alive then physical death is not evil as even people in hell will have benefited from it having been made alive again. So which is it?

Do you believe that dead people can't be conscious?

Jac, does it say somewhere in the bible that when a child dies it is evil? Or because people are mourning at a funeral, they are mourning because something evil happened to the one who died. I know unbelievers mourn differently than believers. My Dad died last Sept. and my family mourned because we'll miss him, not because his death was evil. I would say my Dad's knowing his death was imminent was actually the best thing that could have happened to him. He got his relationship with the Lord where it was supposed to be. I can see some ways someone is killed as being evil if that's what you're saying, but not physical death in general.

Like I said, take that to a grieving mother when her child is killed. Tell her an evil has not befallen her. It's the moral law, Rick. It's written on the hearts of men. I have already given a philosophical justification for it. I've given a biblical justification for it. The morality is obvious. If you want to justify it to maintain your theological position, be my guest. That's your deal, not mine. I just find it grossly immoral to suggest that death is anything less than the absolute, terminal evil. Nothing could be more antithetical to God than death itself. It breaks my heart to see Christians embrace death, not as a necessary evil they must face to maintain their faith, but as something that is either good in and of itself or on the same moral level as the placement of chair in a room.

[RickD]

[/quote]
Like I said, take that to a grieving mother when her child is killed. Tell her an evil has not befallen her. It's the moral law, Rick. It's written on the hearts of men. I have already given a philosophical justification for it. I've given a biblical justification for it. The morality is obvious. If you want to justify it to maintain your theological position, be my guest. That's your deal, not mine. I just find it grossly immoral to suggest that death is anything less than the absolute, terminal evil. Nothing could be more antithetical to God than death itself. It breaks my heart to see Christians embrace death, not as a necessary evil they must face to maintain their faith, but as something that is either good in and of itself or on the same moral level as the placement of chair in a room.[/quote]

Jac, My Father found out he had terminal cancer. Facing death, he got his relationship right with God. If he didn't know he was dying, he may not have accepted Christ. So God used his death to speak to my Dad. You can call that evil, but that imminent death was the best thing that could have happened to my Dad.Edit. Are you saying that death being evil is the moral law?