The first clause is incorrect. Things that God does not “refuse” (I would probably select the word “prevent” instead) CAN happen, but don’t necessarily always happen. If God outright prevents something, however, we can be certain that it will not happen, as you correctly state in the second clause of your sentence.Is it correct for one to say:
“If God does not refuse certain things, then it will happen; and if God refuses certain things, it will not happen”
?
Thank you
I would say that’s correct, but you left out several options.Is it correct for one to say:
“If God does not refuse certain things, then it will happen; and if God refuses certain things, it will not happen”
Sounds about right.Is it correct for one to say:
“If God does not refuse certain things, then it will happen; and if God refuses certain things, it will not happen”?
Thank you
No, that statement is not correct.I guess what I meant was the following:
“If we ask God for something, and if God does not refuse it, then it will happen”
Is the above statement correct?
Thanks again!
I don’t think this is correct. Suppose a woman asks God to send her a baby. Maybe God even wills she has another child; He does not refuse her. But if she and her husband don’t do their part, it won’t happen. God works within our natures and allows for our own choices (including other people’s choices) to affect what happens in our lives. So in my scenario, God is not preventing (or refusing) the couple from having a baby, but it cannot come to fruition unless the couple is naturally fertile and engages in the act that is designed to produce the intended result.I guess what I meant was the following:
“If we ask God for something, and if God does not refuse it, then it will happen”
Is the above statement correct?
Thanks again!
Another example of how this could be incorrect. Say you are asking for a job and God wills for you to obtain that job. But it is dependent on you actually going and applying for that job. The same goes for prayers for someone to kick a drug addiction. God wills that also, but the person with the drug addiction also has to cooperate with God’s graces.I guess what I meant was the following:
“If we ask God for something, and if God does not refuse it, then it will happen”
Is the above statement correct?
Thanks again!
Hi,Another example of how this could be incorrect. Say you are asking for a job and God wills for you to obtain that job. But it is dependent on you actually going and applying for that job. The same goes for prayers for someone to kick a drug addiction. God wills that also, but the person with the drug addiction also has to cooperate with God’s graces.
I think I’m getting hung up on the “refuse” part. I’d probably phrase it: “Nothing can happen without God either willing or permitting it.”Anything that God does not refuse - either in his permissive or ordained will - happens
You are incorrect. My previous posts already answered your question.More on the “conceiving baby” analogy:
If someone wants a baby but didn’t get to have one because the person did not take his or her part, then it is right to say “God refused to allow the person to have baby without taking his or her part”…
More on the “request not granted now but later” analogy:
In such a case, he still refusing to grant it right away but he is not refusing to grant it later…am I right?
I believe that anything that God does not refuse happens - am I right?
Hello,You are incorrect. My previous posts already answered your question.
I see. I think this can be helped with a consideration of the laws of logic.Hello,
Thank you for your reply.
I do understand what you are saying in regards to the existence of evil, but to me it does not mean that it is possible for something that God does not refuse cannot happen.
To me, evil exists because God still wills to permit evil, because God is love.
Without the presence of evil, without our ability to choose between the things that are good or bad, the true love between God and his creation would not exist in this world.
so God did not refuse the existence of evil, even amongst his angels (Lucifer), for greater good.
Hello,I see. I think this can be helped with a consideration of the laws of logic.
Let’s say we have a statement, which is given as true:
Statement 1: “If A is TRUE, then B is TRUE.”
That statement is true. Now tell me, if this statement is also true:
Statement 2: “If A is FALSE, then B is FALSE.”
Does that look true to you? If you said “No” you have correctly seen the issue. This second statement is the inverse of the first statement. The inverse is not always true.
Here’s proof:
Example 1: “If it rains, then school is cancelled.”
Let’s make it as given that that is true. Now look at the inverse:
Example 2: “If it does not rain, then school is not cancelled.”
That is NOT true, because there could be any number of reasons for school to be cancelled. Therefore, the inverse of a true statement is not always true.
Now, let’s bring this back to this current example. You have correctly stated (and I believe we are in full agreement) that anything which God does not permit can not happen. Agreed?
Statement: “Anything which God does not permit can not happen.”
Now, the inverse of that statement:
Inverse: “Anything which God permits will happen.”
By the same measure, that statement is not logically true. We know it is not true because there are certain things which God DOES permit, but do not happen, because some other factor did or did not occur.
I hope this helps. Does that make a bit more sense?
This is correct, but not the inverse.Hello,
I have a degree in Math, and I believe that from my logic class, I was taught if a statement is true, then the inverse of statement may or may not be true (or may or may not be false). There is no guarantee that if a statement is true, then the inverse of the statement is automatically false. on the other hand,
assume that the following statement is true:
if A, then B (if God refuesus, then it doesn’t happen) - (i)
then the statement
if not B, then not A (if it does happen, then God did not refuse) - (ii)
is also guaranteed to be true.
Hi, please see the above quote to see that I was* not *saying that the mathematical logic implies my original statement (if God does not refuse, then it does happen) is necessarily true.since not A, then not B (if God does not refuse, then it does happen) is the inverse of the statement (ii), it may or may not be true.
The answer to that question lies in the meaning of the word “permit”. To permit means to allow, that is, to not prevent. It doesn’t necessarily mean that the agent is causing the thing to happen, but merely that the agent allows it.But the catechism seems to support my opinion - how can God be the master of history, and how can universe be fully subject to him, if what God permits does not necessarily occur?