So, back to this
Kurieuo wrote:I thought my words were obvious, but... "To those who would perish, death would only be seen as evil."
Whether or not someone sees something as evil is not the question. The question is whether or not something IS evil. You and I agree that abortion is evil. Plenty of people don't
see it that way. Bear in mind, I am responding to your statement:
"I am granting that physical death can be evil, but I am not granting it is only evil. "
To that, I asked you to distinguish what can make it evil sometimes and not others. Your answer that some people can see it as evil doesn't answer the question. So I ask again: on what basis is death sometimes evil and sometimes not?
But where there is a greater good in God allowing us to have freedom to choose (and as such commit evil acts), if God did not intend physical death to happen then it seems God had no power to stop "physical death" (evil) from happening.
You are confusing potential for actual. Allowing us the capacity to choose evil is not itself evil. Our choosing evil is evil. If, though, God were to make us so that we were forced, by our nature, to choose evil, then that would be evil--which, by the way, is one of the theological problems I have with strong Calvinism. In the same way, for God to create us in a way that we
can die is not evil. That's a logically necessary part of creation for the simple reason that we do not exist within ourselves. In philosophical terms, there are certain attributes of God that are non-transferable, and perfection and aseity are two of them. As such, all of creation, by virtue of being contingent, has the capacity for death, much as all moral agents have the capacity to choose evil. But by the same token, just as it would be evil for God to create men in a way that they must choose evil by their nature, so it would be evil for God to create men in such a way that they must die by their nature.
In light of that, I have no clue how the second part of your sentence above follows. Did God intend for sin to happen? Certainly not. Does that mean that He has no power to stop sin? Certainly not.
Again, just because God can and does use the evil of this world to bring about His purposes does not make that evil good. It only shows just how great God really is.
But again... I don't see how this gets you off the hook with "physical death" infringing upon God's intended plan and as such God's omnipotence. I haven't read the rest of your response below yet, but I'm not sure you're getting this part...
1. If God is omnipotent then nothing can impose itself upon God's plan unless God intends it.
2. Physical death (presumably you believe brought about by Satan) imposed itelf upon God's creation without God intended it.
3. Therefore, God is not omnipotent.
(1) is false. Do you, again, believe that God INTENDED for men to sin? Of course not. He allowed it, but that doesn't make their sin any less evil. Yet that doesn't mean that God is not omnipotent. Likewise, God did not intend on death entering the world. He allowed it, but that doesn't make it any less evil, nor does it mean He is not omnipotent.
By your logic, it seems to me that you have to choose between God's omnipotence or His goodness, for either 1) God is intended for man to sin and therefore is not good, or 2) God did not intend on man to sin and therefore is not omnipotent.
I can understand this if there was an obvious correlation, but none exists. How can sin cause herbivore animals to suddenly change into carnivore animals? How can sin cause the world to begin winding down? No, physical death is separate from Adam and Eve's sin. No correlation exists which naturally follows. It's like saying because I'm drinking a cup of coffee, the sky is going to turn red. No correlation. On the other hand, Adam sinning by lets say killing Eve, well then physical death makes sense. Direct correlation here. Physical death was able to impose itself upon God's creation because Adam freely chose to kill Eve. You need to explain how Adam and Eve's sin caused all the dramatic changes which brought physical death into the world, if you wish to tie it to their sin.
There is a direct correlation between the death and sin. Besides the fact that Scripture plainly asserts it all over the Bible, theologically, we see that where there is sin there is separation from God, who is the source of life, and therefore, death sets in.
I'm assuming you realize that death is really the absence of life, just as darkness is the absence of light, cold is the absence of heat, and evil is the absence of goodness. Where God is not, death is. As it stands, your view seems to have two severe problems:
1. Death is somehow made an essence in and of itself that is, in your words, "imposed" on the world;
2. Death is not the direct result of sin.
Either of those statements, by themselves, are enough to overturn your entire argument.
I still think you are missing some crucial issues Paul covers in 1 Cor 15.
For example,
- 20 But now Christ ahas been raised from the dead, the bfirst fruits of those who care asleep.
21 For since aby a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead.
22 For aas in Adam all die, so also in 1Christ all will be made alive.
23 But each in his own order: Christ athe first fruits, after that bthose who are Christ's at cHis coming,
We died in Adam a spiritual death which affects our relationship with God. God promised Adam that if he ate from the tree, in the very day he ate fruit he would die. Thus, it is a traditional and standard theological understanding that he died a spiritual death. So "as in Adam all die [spiritually], so also in Christ all will be made alive." Our relationship with God is reinstated once we receive Christ, albeit to be more fully reinstated in the hereafter. Another component to Adam and Eve's sin was that they would now eventually suffer physical death. However, as Christ was resurrected, we are now also promised resurrection into life with Him. On the other hand, "If the dead are not raised, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die." (1 Cor 15:32)
I would submit to you that your understanding is not the "traditional and standard theological understanding." As I have already shown, the CFs and first century Jews held that Adam's death was physical in the very day he ate of the fruit. I would further submit to you that the entire notion of "spiritual death" as commonly understood by the modern pastor is derived from paganism, the Greek thought that matter is evil and the spiritual is good. It's been long and well understood that OT theology--in which Paul was steeped and from which perspective he wrote--knows nothing of an eternity "in heaven" where our souls will sit on clouds and play harps forever. The hope of the OT has always been in physical resurrection at the end of time. As such, physical death is always understood as being a necessary result of being separated from the life-sustaining God. That we have taken that separation and given its own label--"spiritual death"--is close enough to making a false distinction. That we have now totally separated it from physical death is merely an imposition of pagan philosophy and systematic theology on biblical, progressive revelation.
That I am correct about this is evident from the verse verses you quote here, which, further, is the context of the particular verse in question. Note that Paul points out that "If the dead are not raised, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die." Tell me, who would have said the dead are not raised, and why did Paul feel the need to mention it? The answer, of course, is Greek philosophy. As you fully aware, the Greeks mocked the notion of resurrection. As such, people began to reinterpret Jesus' resurrection as a
spiritual resurrection. Paul blasts this idea. There will be a physical resurrection, contrary to Greek thought. Thus, Jesus' death was physical. But why the need for a physical resurrection? Because men physically die. And why do men physically die? Because Adam sinned (1 Cor 15:21-22), and following him, we all sin. As such, death is the enemy of man. God became a man to defeat that enemy. Thus, death is Jesus' enemy. Thus, death is evil.
Thus, by your own admission, as quoted below, God could not have created the world to die, or else God would be evil. Thus, God did not create death before the Fall. To say so is to make God evil, by
your words.
Jesus conquered death, it has no hold over us. I'm not sure what you make of the following:
- 42 aSo also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown 1ba perishable body, it is raised 2can imperishable body;
43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in aglory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power;
44 it is sown a anatural body, it is raised a bspiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
45 So also it is written, “The first aman, Adam, became a living soul.” The blast Adam became a clife-giving spirit.
46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.
It was all intended by God that the natural come first. God cannot create evil, as this makes God evil. Thus, if physical death is entirely evil as you say, and was created by God, then God is evil. Looking at it from Gman's and my own perspective, we can still comprehend 1 Cor 15 with the understanding that physical death is our enemy, was our enemy... but that is certainly no longer the case for those in Christ.
- 50 Now I say this, brethren, that aflesh and blood cannot binherit the kingdom of God; nor does 1the perishable inherit 2cthe imperishable.
51 Behold, I tell you a amystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be bchanged,
52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for athe trumpet will sound, and bthe dead will be raised 1imperishable, and cwe will be changed.
53 For this 1perishable must put on 2athe imperishable, and this bmortal must put on immortality.
54 But when this 1perishable will have put on 2the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, “aDeath is swallowed up in victory.
55 “aO death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?”
56 The sting of adeath is sin, and bthe power of sin is the law;
57 but athanks be to God, who gives us the bvictory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
I'm sure you won't follow the pagan Greeks and equate the natural with evil. A natural, perishable, dishonorable, weak body is not an evil body. It is temporary, for sure, to allow man to choose God, as you and I both agree is logically necessary if God is to avoid the charge of divine rape. God cannot logically create man in an originally imperishable, glorified, powerful, spiritual body. Such a body is only possible if one is in the right relationship with God, and one cannot be in such a relationship without having made the choice.
Does this mean, then, that God created the natural body to die? There's nothing that requires it. The natural body must only be able to choose. If it chooses life, then it reaps this abundant life. It it chooses itself--flesh--it reaps death, which is precisely what happened.
Jesus conquered death because, complete with His natural, perishable, dishonorable, weak body, He chose life. Those who are in Him will be given a body like His own. So, again, unless you want to argue that such a body is necessarily evil, you don't have a case, and if you do want to make that argument, you are going to have a severe problem dealing with how Jesus in an evil body could atone for sin.
So your position has a lot of problems, K . . . the confusion between perception of evil and actual evil, of intention vs. allowed consequences, of the very definition of death, of the results of sin, of the relationship between "spiritual" and "physical" death, of the relationship between matter and spirit . . . all that, and you still have the direct biblical assertion that death is "his" enemy, where "his" goes back to "Jesus." As you agreed that anything that is the enemy of Jesus is evil, you have the direct assertion that death is itself evil.
The evidence is simply overwhelming for me. God did not create death before the Fall. For Him to have done so would make Him evil. Rather, it entered the world through Adam's sin, just as Paul asserted in Rom 5:12.
Nevertheless it was a bit of a "moment" for me at the time and it helped alot. 
I'm not looking for an argument, just curious because my Dad had cholangiocarcinoma(bile duct cancer) when he died in Sept.
What divisive statements are you referring too?