FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   347   348   349   350   351   352   353   354   355   356   357   358   359   360   361   362   363   364   365   366   367   368   369   370   371  
372   373   374   375   376   377   378   379   380   381   382   383   384   385   386   387   388   389   390   391   392   393   394   395   396   >>   >|  
corrupt will of man retains the power to decide also in favor of the operations of the Holy Spirit. And if I answer that original sin is not an accident (such as you have in mind), you will again infer what I disavow, _viz._, that man, who by the Fall has lost the ability to will in the spiritual direction, has _eo ipso_ lost the will and its freedom entirely and as such." As it was, however, Flacius instead of adhering strictly to the real issue--the question concerning man's cooperation in conversion--and exposing the sophistry implied in the question put by Strigel, most unfortunately suffered himself to be caught on the horns of the dilemma. He blindly walked into the trap set for him by Strigel, from which also later on he never succeeded in fully extricating himself. With all his soul Flacius rejected the synergism involved in Strigel's question. His blunder was, as stated, that he did so in terms universally regarded as Manichean. He was right when he maintained that original sin is the inherited tendency and motion of the human mind, will, and heart, not toward, but against God,--a direction, too, which man is utterly unable to change. But he erred fatally by identifying this inborn evil tendency with the substance of fallen man and the essence of his will as such. It will always be regarded as a redeeming feature that it was in antagonizing synergism and championing the Lutheran _sola gratia_ that Flacius coined his unhappy proposition. And in properly estimating his error, it must not be overlooked that he, as will be shown in the following, employed the terms "substance" and "accident" not in their generally accepted meaning but in a sense, and according to a philosophical terminology, of his own. 169. Formal and Material Substance. The terms "substance" and "accident" are defined in Melanchthon's _Erotemata Dialectices_ as follows: "_Substantia est ens, quod revera proprium esse habet, nec est in alio, ut habens esse a subiecto._ Substance is something which in reality has a being of its own and is not in another as having its being from the subject." (_C. R._ 13, 528.) "_Accidens est quod non per sese subsistit, nec est pars substantiae, sed in alio est mutabiliter._ Accident is something which does not exist as such nor is a part of the substance, but is changeable in something else." (522.) Melanchthon continues: "Accidentium alia sunt separabilia ut frigus ab aqua, notitia a mente, laetitia, tristit
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   347   348   349   350   351   352   353   354   355   356   357   358   359   360   361   362   363   364   365   366   367   368   369   370   371  
372   373   374   375   376   377   378   379   380   381   382   383   384   385   386   387   388   389   390   391   392   393   394   395   396   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
substance
 

question

 
accident
 

Strigel

 

Flacius

 

direction

 
synergism
 

regarded

 
tendency
 
Melanchthon

original

 

Substance

 

Material

 

defined

 

terminology

 
Formal
 

gratia

 

coined

 

unhappy

 

proposition


Lutheran

 

championing

 
redeeming
 

feature

 
antagonizing
 

properly

 
estimating
 

accepted

 

generally

 
meaning

employed
 

overlooked

 

Erotemata

 

philosophical

 

reality

 

changeable

 

mutabiliter

 

Accident

 

continues

 

Accidentium


notitia

 

laetitia

 

tristit

 
separabilia
 
frigus
 

substantiae

 

habens

 

subiecto

 

essence

 
proprium