The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Theistic definition of "coincidence."

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.

What do you mean by “in God’s mind”?

If you mean outside of His knowledge, foresight, and control, of course there are no chance happenings in that sense.

But if you mean outside of His perfect will and intentions, you not only disagree with the good doctor, you disagree with yourself here.

You’ve already said that there are things that arise “indirectly from the Lord permitting” and “not directly causing” them.

That means they don’t have a per se cause intended by their Cause (i.e. God), but happen outside the agent’s intention (God’s perfect will, that which He intends per se), and are not a per se effects but accidental effects.

They are “coincidences” by the definition suggested on this thread.

You either jumped in here without really reading the OP, or you didn’t understand what I was saying (there, or in my reply to your initial post.)

Please try to think a little more clearly.

Thank you.

“St. Michael”:

Please let me ask you a question here.

If you really believe the word “coincidence” has no possible meaning for a Theist–i.e. that there’s no sense in which anything can be called a “coincidence,” what meaning or purpose do you see in this?

brandplucked.webs.com/whoreofbabyloncatholic.htm

This appears to be a “King James only” web site, I’ve never visited it before, and I am in no way endorsing it (or the idea that the Roman Catholic Church is “the whore of Babylon.”)

But if you believe everything is directly willed by God for some specific purpose of it’s own (as you seem to be saying on this thread sometimes), wouldn’t that imply that God meant Luther, and Calvin, and Knox (and some early Franciscans, and the Seventh Day Advantists) to take Revelation 17:9 (“The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits”) to point to the institutional Church headquartered at Rome?

I believe St. Aquinas answered questions like this when he said “Not all things, however, that occur through divine providence are ordered so as to be signs of the future,” but how would you answer it?

If you believe that not everything foreseen and permitted by God is willed “per se,” it’s easy to see that all things that occur through divine providence (that God foresees and wills, either per se or per accidens) aren’t so ordered so as to be signs of the future, but if you believe there simply isn’t anything in all creation that could in any sense be considered a “coincedence” (in any sense of the word, as you seem to be arguing here), why would Luther, and Calvin, and Knox be given a pasage in Holy writ that clearly said the enemy of the Church would be centered in a city (like Rome) that was built on seven hills, at a time when the Catholic Church admits it was lagely currupt?

What divine purpose could Providence have in these circumstances, if they are not extraneous circumstances God didn’t really will of themselves (to send Luther, and Calvin, and the others any kind of message)?

An “accidental cause” as Aquinas is referring to isn’t something that happens fortuitously or by chance. I’ve already showed you the quote above where he says that from God’s perspective there are no chance happenings in His providence. When a cow crops the grass he does so to nourish his life. The accidental cause is that the grass is destroyed. Likewise God sustains human life by keeping it in existence but allows man to sin of his own will. Hence, God causes evil by accidental cause. An accidental cause for Aquinas is a concurrent cause not a chance cause. While all chance occurrences are due to concurrence, these examples show that the accidents coinciding with per se causes cannot be called chance occurrences since they are not contrary to expectation. I don’t know God’s reasons for permitting evil until He reveals those reasons. Logical explanations are infinite in number. Very much more so when dealing with a being who is infinite in wisdom and knowledge. I don’t try to get into God’s business. I trust Him and try to help others by doing mercy and justice.