Mixing theology and philosophy a bit

[Bernie]

In the spirit of this section, Nature of Reality and Being, I'd like to start with one of Aquinas' foundations, borrowed from Aristotle, that the good equals being. In Aquinas' thinking, only good = being, and evil is "accidental" or a privation of good. As such, evil, in St. Thomas' eyes, has no real essence. I think this was more or less picked up by Calvin and other reformers and carried on into Protestantism.

This notion that evil has the status of a privation has been carried through time to affect Christian thinking to this day in one form or another. It seems to me that a second cousin to this concept is found today in the idea that the human spirit is instantly and wholly regenerate in a single, instantaneous event. Popular thinking then progresses from this point to place evil in an ambiguous "flesh". The Calvinist position is more elaborate than the Arminian view, here....our Calvinist brethren, probably because their theology has closer ties to rational investigation, recognize that certain experiential problems arise in this view of regeneration--that the one who is allegedly spiritually "clean" still sins, for instance--and have created an almost equally ambiguous and cumbersome doctrine called conversion, an attempt to reconcile the problems imposed by the fact that evil is found in the one said to be spiritually clean.

I believe that if Aquinas' ontology is adjusted to accept that evil is a privation only in a descriptive sense, but given ontic status along with good as properties inherent in the prescriptive sense of spirit/soul (I tend to use the two interchangeably) and causatively in intellect/mind (ditto) and on to matter--that practically all the inconsistencies imposed by the former view are corrected.

Case in point: good and evil are found in some mixed ratio in the thoughts, words and actions of all individuals....therefore, it's more reasonable to suppose that good and evil exist as simultaneous and fragmentally dispersed properties in spirit, mind and body. The latter view necessarily makes a number of changes to doctrine generally, but does so with a high degree of coherence and unity.

Any debaters?

[Turgonian]

It seems to me that a second cousin to this concept is found today in the idea that the human spirit is instantly and wholly regenerate in a single, instantaneous event. Popular thinking then progresses from this point to place evil in an ambiguous "flesh". The Calvinist position is more elaborate than the Arminian view, here....our Calvinist brethren, probably because their theology has closer ties to rational investigation, recognize that certain experiential problems arise in this view of regeneration--that the one who is allegedly spiritually "clean" still sins, for instance--and have created an almost equally ambiguous and cumbersome doctrine called conversion, an attempt to reconcile the problems imposed by the fact that evil is found in the one said to be spiritually clean.

Either I'm not understanding you too well, or you're missing a point. No one in this world is 'spiritually clean'. However, by saving faith a person is instantly justified. I.e. he is still a sinner, but the punishment for his sins is transferred from him to Christ. He is legally sinless before God, because his sins are not accounted to him. However, that does not mean he does not sin anymore.

It DOES mean that he is now able to do morally good, to glorify God in his life. He is also still able to do evil, but he is exhorted to hate and flee it.

The spirit is 'instantly regenerate': that is true. If it weren't, we might ask why Christ calls it the 'new birth' if it's a birth that takes your entire life. It doesn't mean the spirit is instantly free from temptation. Especially immature Christians are still vulnerable.

[godslanguage]

There is no competition between the philosophy the bible teaches and the philosophy Aristotle, Nietcszhe or Hobbes or whomever teaches. They can't even scratch the surface at what the bible has to offer.(in my opinion)

[madscientist]

There is no competition between the philosophy the bible teaches and the philosophy Aristotle, Nietcszhe or Hobbes or whomever teaches. They can't even scratch the surface at what the bible has to offer.(in my opinion)

ya i agree compeltely - were you referring to the thing that bible is a book oiffering us eternal life whereas other secular pohilosphies do not? If yes than absolutely true. However Bible and theology itslef is a theory and philosophy and so is all the religion(s) in the world. too interesting and complicated to understand it all. because, even if we do read whole Bible, we'll still have so many questions. (this forum?? )

As for the new birth and regenration - at what point does it occur? When one has accepted Christ, i've heard, but thats not that simple. If you can lose your salvsation (discutable though), then is this rebirth permanent? And do we feel it; is it something purely spiritual or also in our brain - that we act differently because we're conscious of this change?

I think we still sin, but we may do so less as we have the notion of Christ and are conscious of the fact; so we think of life differently and we have changed that in our brain - we know and are aware of it, so we aim on Him and TRY to be better, and maybe even if fail, we believe we have God on our side. (my opinion)

Any thoughts?>