The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Theistic definition of "coincidence."

Then why are you arguing?

Then you agree that there are things He doesn’t will per se, but only per accidens–and that there are such things as “coincidences” (or, if you prefer, extreneous circumstances.)

That’s all I said in the OP, and it’s perfectly in line with Saint Thomas, so I fail to see what you’re arguing about here.

I never said God wasn’t ultimately in control, or that He didn’t have beneficent purposes.

On the contrary, the view that God directly causes everything that happens in this world, and that He wills all the evil that happens per se would bring despair into the lives of people–and if that’s not what you’re arguing, I fail to see why you’ve come here arguing.

All I said is that “extraneous circumstance” would be one definition of the word “coincidence” that could have meaning to a Theist, since there are Theists (like Thomas Aquinas) who believe that God permits things He doesn’t will per se, and clearly believe extraneous circumstances exist in this world.

Why do you feel compelled to come here and attack me for that?

No, you’re either misunderstanding me, or deliberatly trying to misrepresent what I’m saying.

**Yes, Saint Thomas did say that–and that’s all I’m saying.

So what was your point again?**

I’m not attacking you. I’m saying you’re wrong about Aquinas and the fact that God’s control and providence gives hope to people. You started the arguing. I see no coincidences. Just like the Friar above I have hope in my despair and have had hope in my despair knowing God is in control and everything happens for a reason. My God brings beauty out of ashes. But I’ll leave it at that. :smiley:

I’ve been saying (like Saint Thomas said) that there are things that God wills per se, and things that He wills per accidens–and that for a Theist (who believes in Providence) a “coincidence” could be defined as an extraneous circumstance that arises out of something God wills per se.

In other words, a “coincidence” could be defined as something God only wills per accidens (and “per se,” and “per accidens” are terms used by Saint Thomas BTW.)

Where exactly am I wrong about Saint Thomas?

It was Saint Thomas who said

newadvent.org/summa/1049.htm

Doesn’t that sound like he’d agree with me?

I don’t believe I did.

But I thought you agreed with Aquinas, that there are things that God permits (but doesn’t will per se)?

If so how can you fail to see coincidences (in the sense I’ve suggested the word be used)?

Or accidents (in the sense Saint Thomas himself used the word)?

newadvent.org/summa/1049.htm

All I said was that such things could be called coincidences.

Why does that make you angrey?

What are you arguing about?

Michael,

If you read Aquinas you will see that he believes in God’s total sovereignty. Unlike Calvin though he believed God permits evil and suffering. There are no coincidences or accidents in God’s world. Per accidens as used by Aquinas means in accidental or nonessential character. The difference between essential and accidental properties has been characterized differently in different ways.

God causing corruption is an accidental property. An accident is a property which has no necessary connection to the essence of the thing being described

All this is saying is God doesn’t cause the corruption of things. He permits it. It’s “accidental”. An “accidental” property. An accident is a property which has no necessary connection to the essence of the thing being described

I am one that does not believe in foreknowledge and predestination in the sense that the future has already happened and God sees this. I would say that the future is generally known by looking at the past and present. I also believe in just plain old coincidence.To use Michael’s example of the stopped clock, I don’t think that God was stopping the clock for one individual or for a select group of people that may have also had something to do at 2:30. What about all the people who didn’t get a reminder and happened to miss their ten o’clock appointments? Coincidence pretty much boils down to probability and chance.

Please define what you mean here by “total sovereigny”?

If all you mean is that God is ultimately in control, you and I and Aquinas can agree on that.

But at times you seem to be saying that God wills everything per se, and that nothing could be considered only indirectly related to his purpose.

If that were the case, nothing would be willed per accidens, and the devil would only exist because God wants a devil.

Evil would only exist because God wills it per se.

That way of thinking would truly bring despair into people’s lives.

Now let’s take another look at what St. Thomas said regarding corruption and death.

"And thus God, by causing in things the good of the order of the universe (which He wills per se), consequently and as it were by accident, causes the corruptions of things (the corruption of things isn’t a property of the good order of the universe God wills per se, but God causes it accidentally by willing that order–and it’s not a property of that order because it’s not something God wills per se, but only per accidens), according to 1 Samuel 2:6: “The Lord killeth and maketh alive.” But when we read that “God hath not made death” (Wisdom 1:13), the sense is that God does not will death for its own sake (He doesn’t will death for it’s own sake–He doesn’t will it per se, but only per accidens).

I still don’t know why you’re arguing with me, but I know I’m not misreading Aquinas here.

Where exactly is your disagreement with me and the good Saint?

Accident is referring to a property. Not a coincidence. It’s an accidental property that God causes the corruption of things. An accident is a property which has no necessary connection to the essence of the thing being described. In other words God PERMITS corruption, evil, and suffering. It has nothing to do with it being a coincidence. There are accidental properties and essential properties. It’s how they describe transubstantiation. The elements change into the substance of blood and body without the ACCIDENTS of body and blood. The ACCIDENTS of bread and wine without the substance of bread and wine.

Depends on what you mean by “coincidence,” and you’re arguing for the sake of arguing (arguing per se.)

Let me ask you something.

If you believe (as Aquinas did) that angels fell from heaven, do you believe God willed that per se?

Or do you believe it was an accident arising out of things he did will per se (a created order, creatures with free will capable of making morally signicant choices, etc.)?

If God PERMITS corruption, evil, and suffering (as you keep saying) He doesn’t will them per se.

They are accidental, coincidental, or extraneous circumstances arizing out of what He does will per se.

That’s what Aquinas was saying, that’s what I’m saying, and that’s what you’re (for some reason) arguing against.

There are properties of things. Some are called ACCIDENTAL and some ESSENTIAL. It has nothing to do with being a coincidence. It’s how they describe transubstantiation. The elements change into the substance of blood and body without the ACCIDENTS of body and blood. The ACCIDENTS of bread and wine without the substance of bread and wine. You are confusing accidental properties with a coincidence.

Except that in the passage I quoted, Aquinas says that God caused the corruption of things "consequently and as it were by accident.

What he said was that in creating the good order of the universe, God created corruption “by accident,” not that corruption is an accidental property of creation.

Read it again.

God caused it by accident, because it was not something He willed per se.

Now when we’re talking about God, there are no unforseen accidents, because He foresees all–but that’s not the issue here.

You aparently dislike the word “coincidence” and want to argue about it.

All I’m saying is that that word can have meaning when used by a Theist, if what they mean by that word is something that God didn’t will per se.

In other words, something He forsaw and allowed only per accidens.

An extraneous circumstances arising out of the good order of the universe, as Aquinas might put it.

Aquinas is saying that God causing the corruption of things is an accidental property. An accident is a property which has no necessary connection to the essence of the thing being described. In other words God PERMITS corruption, evil, and suffering.

What he said was that in creating the good order of the universe, God created corruptions “by accident,” not that corruptions are accidental properties of creation (though that would follow, that too is true, and he may well have said that at another time.)

But I still fail to see what you’re arguing about here.

If some things are only side effects of what God really wills, and He only permits them, why can they not be considered extraneous circumstances, coincidences, or accidents?

Because that’s not what Thomas Aquinas or the Catechism teaches. God directs all things. There are no coincidences or accidents. God guides us through our suffering bringing hope and comfort. He’s in control guiding His creation:

If God is not the holy sovereign then there’s no reason to trust Him. We lose hope. For with God in control and my future in His hands I have hope.

God causing corruption by accident - this is the accidental property. In other words God permits corruption. Not directly causes it. Remember, An accident is a property which has no necessary connection to the essence of the thing being described.

Actually, it is what Aquinas teaches.

Here is a direct quote.

(De malo, Ia 1.3).

Now take another look at what he said in the passage I quoted earlier, and perhaps you’ll understand it

newadvent.org/summa/1049.htm

In this case the agent is God, and what Aquinas is saying is that the corruption of things is an accidental effect of God’s creating "the good of the order of the universe."

The good order of the Universe was intended by God (willed per se), the corruption of things was outside His intention (willed per accidens.)

So Aquinas is saying there are as extraneous circumstances God wills only per accidens, and that arise out of things He wills per se–in other words there are things that could be considered coincidences acording to the definition I suggested in the OP.

.

I agree that it’s an accidental effect. But not a coincidence. It is accidental in the sense that it isn’t a direct cause. Just like God isn’t the direct cause of corruption. This doesn’t mean it’s chance or coincidence though. Aquinas Explains this:

This is a chance happening from a human perspective. Not coincidence at all from God’s perspective. But it is accidental in the sense that God doesn’t directly cause it. Moreover, it’s unchangeable and certain and happens infallibly.

No coincidence from God’s perspective. Again there are accidental properties and essential properties. Corruption doesn’t arrive from God’s direct causation but accidentally in Him permitting it. Nothing about accident in the sense of coincidence.

newadvent.org/summa/1022.htm

That would depend entirely on what you mean by “coincidence.”

So in the only sense relevant here–**the only sense in which I suggested the word “coincidence” could have any meaning to a Theist–corruption is a “coincidence”!

Even from God’s perspective.

It’s something that He doesn’t will in and of itself (per se), but only permits per accidens.

That makes it a “coincidennce” by the definition I suggested in the OP.**

Extraneous means “not belonging or proper to a thing; external; foreign,” and if God doesn’t will something per se, it’s somewhat extraneous to His purpose (the thing that He does will per se.)

Again, what are you arguing about?

I never suggested that God didn’t forsee all events, or that they could happen any differently than they happen–all I said was that He doesn’t will everything that happens per se, and Saint Thomas Aquinas agrees with me (and you even say you agree with me.)

So why are you arguing here?

Yes it’s not directly caused by God or “willed” in the sense of direct causation but it is permitted and therefore not a coincidence. As Aquinas says:

Yes God permits corruption and it doesn’t happens by His direct causation. But as the Catholic Catechism states He directs and governs all His creation. Not just part of it:

It is a “coincidence” by the only definition that counts here on this thread, the definition suggested in the OP.

A circumstance is something that happens, and extraneous means “not belonging or proper to a thing; external; foreign.”

An extraneous circumstance would therefore be something that God permits to happen, even though it’s extraneous to what He directly wills in and of itself.

Nobody but LLC is disagreeing with what Aquinas said about God being in control here, except maybe in your mind.

And the fact that Aquinas used an example of two human agents in one quote does not change the fact that he clearly had God in mind as an agent when he said

newadvent.org/summa/1049.htm

God is the agent here, and by causing “in things the good of the order of creation” Aquinas says He causes corruptions “consequently and as it were by accident.”

So the good saint does recognize that “coincidences” (in the sense I mean here) do exist, even from God’s perspective.

Yes. For something to be accidental or have an accidental property it is to have a property which has no necessary connection to the essence of the thing being described. Corruption arises indirectly from the Lord permitting it not directly causing it. Even in rolling dice:

The good saint disagrees with you. There are no chance happenings in God’s mind.