Prayer for life

P

Sub-Categories: Palmer | Palmer | Pedro Bay | Pedro Bay | Pelican | Pelican | Perryville | Perryville | Peters Creek | Peters Creek | Petersburg | Petersburg | Pilot Point | Pilot Point | Pilot Station | Pilot Station | Platinum | Platinum | Point Baker | Point Baker | Point Hope | Point Hope | Point Lay | Point Lay | Port Alexander | Port Alexander | Port Alice | Port Alice | Port Alsworth | Port Alsworth | Port Graham | Port Graham | Port Heiden | Port Heiden | Port Lions | Port Lions | Port William | Port William | Prince of Wales Island | Prince of Wales Island | Prudhoe Bay | Prudhoe Bay


In article <8D435349-1BD8-E916-C09B-0B9072E7F05A@srcbs.org>,
lsenders@hotmail.com says...
>
>I have not been following this thread.

We can tell.

> However, the thread title has
>been of interest to me for Aquinas wrote:

>"free will is not an independent causality.

So then does he believe it is a 'causality', but not an _independent_ one, or
does he believe it is independent, but not a causality?

> God works in the finite
>will in the way that the nature of it requires that he should;

which means?

>although, therefore, he changes the inclination of man to another
>direction, nevertheless, by his almighty power he cause that man >should freely
>will the change which he experiences;

And how often have you and other 'Reform' propagandists denies THIS? I have lost
count.

> and thus all consraint is
>removed.

Again: how often have you and other 'Reform' propagandists denies THIS? I have
lost count.

> For to suppose otherwise, that the man willed not to change
>which is a change in his will, would be a contradition." [Neander,
>"History" 4.481)

Now why can't you give the citation in the original Aquinas? Why did you have to
give Neander instead? Perhaps because you have never read an entire paragraph of
Aquinas yourself? But then you cannot understand him.

>Man can ruin himself but he cannot save himself.

That does not deny free will. So what IS your point?


--
---------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
quidquid boni habet, tribuat illi a quo factus est.
(St. Augustine, Ser. 96)


((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))

I think the Book of Job is a Hegelian theodicy where undeserved evil
is presented as morally necessary for the creation of the possibility
of a completely selfless love of men and women for God.

1. God is causally responsible for the moral and natural evils that
befell Job. God is the principal. Satan is his agent. The actions of
the agents are attributable to the principal. This evil is not for
punishment, nor for character development.

2. Job rightly puts God on trial through an Oath of Innocence
demanding an answer to question of why God created that evil.

3. God shows up for trial but cannot enter a defense. He cannot give
Job the explicit reason for evil in the world, lest that give Job a
reason to continue his love for God. God hints at the existence of a
defense through the image of Leviathan. Leviathan is a moral metaphor
for chaos and evil. The book draws on Isaiah's development of that
image where the destruction of Leviathan signals a