Original Research

Die voorsienigheidsleer vanuit die gereformeerde belydenisskrifte teenoor Adrio König se voorsienigheidsleer – ’n Dogma-historiese beoordeling

Morné Diedericks, Carel F.C. Coetzee
In die Skriflig/In Luce Verbi | Vol 47, No 1 | a720 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.4102/ids.v47i1.720 | © 2013 Morné Diedericks, Carel F.C. Coetzee | This work is licensed under CC Attribution 4.0
Submitted: 16 April 2013 | Published: 01 November 2013

About the author(s)

Morné Diedericks, Faculty of Theology, North-West University, South Africa
Carel F.C. Coetzee, Faculty of Theology, North-West University, South Africa


Share this article

Bookmark and Share

Abstract

König is ’n aktuele en invloedryke teoloog en sy standpunte kan nie geïgnoreer word nie (Strauss 2004:123). König (2002:13) beskou homself as ’n gereformeerde teoloog alhoewel sy voorsienigheidsleer van die klassieke gereformeerde siening verskil. In sommige gevalle word König se teologie as reformatories gesien (bv. sy leer oor die regverdigmaking) en in ander gevalle weer nie, byvoorbeeld die leer oor die voorsienigheid (Strauss 2004:139). Volgens König (2002:33) is die klassieke gereformeerde verstaan van die voorsienigheid nie werklik vertroostend nie. Die klassieke gereformeerde siening van die voorsienigheid maak volgens König van God ’n bose God wat die kwaad beskik en dan net toekyk as die kwaad gebeur. König (2002:237) se oplossing vir die probleem van die klassieke gereformeerde siening is dat God nie ten volle in beheer is nie, maar dat Hy eendag eers in beheer sal kom. Hierdie siening van König is in stryd met die gereformeerde belydenis waarin bely word dat God deur sy voorsienige hand alle dinge onderhou en regeer. Die gevolgtrekking is dat König se voorsienigheidsleer in die lig van die gereformeerde belydenis nie vertroostend is of kan wees nie en net meer verwarring en wanhoop veroorsaak.

König is a contemporary and influential theologian and his views can not be ignored (Strauss 2004:123). König (2002:13) regards himself as a reformed theologian, but his doctrine on providence differs from the classic reformed view. In some cases, König’s theology is viewed as reformed (eg. his doctrine on justification) but not in all cases, as is the case with the doctrine on providence (Strauss 2004:139). According to König (2002:33) the classic reformed understanding of providence is not comforting. Also, according to König, the classic reformed view of providence indicates God as an evil God who ordains evil, and then sits back and watches as it unfolds. König’s (2002:237) solution for the problem of the classic reformed view is that God is not fully in control, but that He only will be in control one day. This view of König is in conflict with the reformed confession which confesses that God through his providential hand maintains and governs all things. The conclusion is that König’s doctrine of providence is not comforting in the light of the reformed confession, and that it only causes more confusion and despair.


Keywords

No related keywords in the metadata.

Metrics

Total abstract views: 1980
Total article views: 4792


Crossref Citations

No related citations found.