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?**