Die grootste probleem wat ek persoonlik met 'vry wil' het, is die terminologie hiervan, wat werklik arrogant voorkom en is dit meerendeels die verwronge beeld oor die feilbare, beperkte realiteit waarin ons leef, wat met 'n term soos 'vry wil' aanstoot gee, oor 'n skepping wat aan 'n almagtige Skepper behoort en nie die skepsels nie. Oor hierdie rede het Martin Luther teenoor Erasmus as volg gereageer in 'n debat hieroor...
"I could wish, indeed, that a better term was available for our discussion than the accepted one, necessity, which cannot accurately be used of either man's will or God's. Its meaning is too harsh, and foreign to the subject; for it suggests some sort of compulsion, and something that is against one's will, which is no part of the view under debate. This will, whether it be God's or man's does what it does, good or bad, under no compulsion, but just as it wants or pleases, as if totally free. Yet the will of God, which rules over our mutable will, is changeless and sure - as Boetius sings, Immovable Thyself, Thou movement giv'st to all; and our will, principally because of its corruption, can do no good of itself. The reader's understanding, therefore, must supply what the word itself fails to convey, from his knowledge of the intended signification - the immutable will of God on the one hand, and the impotence of our corrupt will on the other. Some have called it necessity of immutability, but the phrase is both grammatically and theologically defective."
Waarom al die uiteenlopende reaksies op die evangelie? Vrye wil. Wat anders?
Reply With Quote
..... m
Originally Posted by Henry
kan iemand met 'n beter verstaan van ons taalgebruik dalk help ? ::
... m
Bookmarks