M
Michael1801
Guest
On a thread that was automatically closed just three hours ago, I asked whether the word “coincidence” could have any meaning to a Theist who believes in Divine Providence, and whether Thomas Aquinas had anything useful to say on the subject.
A contributor on that thread provided a quote that seemed helpful, and (given that quote) I tried to explain what I thought Aquinas meant–but I was uncertain I understood him correctly, so I emailed part of the discussion to a friend who teaches theology in Australia, and I just heard back from him today.
For those who might be interested, here is part of what he said:
"…As for Aquinas, your explanation was quite reasonable. **God is seen in Thomism as the First Cause necessarily underlying all secondary causality. But his willing of all finite effects is, as you note, not all in the same mode or immediacy. Some things God wills absolutely in themselves, though even there he can achieve his ends via contingent secondary causes he ‘foreknows’ perfectly, including free human wills. Other things he wills not for themselves but only permissively as part of his Providence, such as moral evils, in order that a ‘big picture’ good is enabled.
And in both categories are coincidental relationships between events, things, words and numbers that are foreknown by God and willed by him per accidens, but are not intended by him per se as signs or messages. Indeed, there are potentially an infinite number of these, since there are innumerable events, things, words and numbers and no limit to the ingenious or contrived ways a mind can abstractly interconnect them. This is one of the reasons God and the Church do not allow us to use an epistemology that prioritises such ‘signs’, but instead point us to Scripture, Tradition, ordinary counsel by the wise and experienced, common-sense rational prudence and internal guidance by the Spirit as the normal means of determining truth and informing choice…Pax Et Bonum."
So it would seem a Theist can believe that some things are “coincidences,” and that he could define a coincidence as “relationships between events, things, words and numbers that are foreknown by God and willed by him per accidens, but are not intended by him per se as signs or messages.”
I find that definition extremely useful in explaining the kind of relationships mentioned in the other thread.
Does anyone else have any thoughts or comments?
A contributor on that thread provided a quote that seemed helpful, and (given that quote) I tried to explain what I thought Aquinas meant–but I was uncertain I understood him correctly, so I emailed part of the discussion to a friend who teaches theology in Australia, and I just heard back from him today.
For those who might be interested, here is part of what he said:
"…As for Aquinas, your explanation was quite reasonable. **God is seen in Thomism as the First Cause necessarily underlying all secondary causality. But his willing of all finite effects is, as you note, not all in the same mode or immediacy. Some things God wills absolutely in themselves, though even there he can achieve his ends via contingent secondary causes he ‘foreknows’ perfectly, including free human wills. Other things he wills not for themselves but only permissively as part of his Providence, such as moral evils, in order that a ‘big picture’ good is enabled.
And in both categories are coincidental relationships between events, things, words and numbers that are foreknown by God and willed by him per accidens, but are not intended by him per se as signs or messages. Indeed, there are potentially an infinite number of these, since there are innumerable events, things, words and numbers and no limit to the ingenious or contrived ways a mind can abstractly interconnect them. This is one of the reasons God and the Church do not allow us to use an epistemology that prioritises such ‘signs’, but instead point us to Scripture, Tradition, ordinary counsel by the wise and experienced, common-sense rational prudence and internal guidance by the Spirit as the normal means of determining truth and informing choice…Pax Et Bonum."
So it would seem a Theist can believe that some things are “coincidences,” and that he could define a coincidence as “relationships between events, things, words and numbers that are foreknown by God and willed by him per accidens, but are not intended by him per se as signs or messages.”
I find that definition extremely useful in explaining the kind of relationships mentioned in the other thread.
Does anyone else have any thoughts or comments?
Last edited: