New Apologetics Website

[rkwright]

Anyone visited www.newapologetics.com? It's getting a ton of likes on my Facebook page. Personally I've read two of the entries there and thought there are some serious problems with their theology. Just worries me when I see Catholics 'liking' them on fb.

Thoughts?

[iheartjp2]

Can you name some things that you specifically find problematic? I've glanced at some of the site (most of which is under construction). 

[Basilisa Marie]

Yes, could you be more specific? I gave the site a quick once-over and I didn't see anything particularly objectionable. 

[rkwright]

Yeah you'll actually have to jump into some of the articles written there. The one I was reading was the theodicy of divine chastity.

Two sections that stuck out...

"Consequently, God’s self-gift is not dependent on what we do with it. God is always the same regardless of whether we return his love or abuse it. “If we are unfaithful, he remains faithful, for he cannot deny himself” (2 Timothy, 2:13). God, in perfect chastity, offers himself to us regardless of whether or not we choose to receive and return his love, and utterly disregards the knowledge of our future infidelities in deciding whether or not he will offer himself fully. Though God is omniscient, he gives of himself without stint as if he did not know that we would abuse his gift."


"In divine chastity, God has truly given away all power that can be given away, and has kept for himself only those functions which cannot be delegated because they require infinite power. All finite power has been put into in the hands of creatures. Since this is a true giving, and not merely the appearance of gift, it follows that creatures now have a kind of power in the world that God does not have."

[iheartjp2]

Okay. This is problematic...how?

[Papist]

Yeah you'll actually have to jump into some of the articles written there. The one I was reading was the theodicy of divine chastity.

Two sections that stuck out...

"Consequently, God’s self-gift is not dependent on what we do with it. God is always the same regardless of whether we return his love or abuse it. “If we are unfaithful, he remains faithful, for he cannot deny himself” (2 Timothy, 2:13). God, in perfect chastity, offers himself to us regardless of whether or not we choose to receive and return his love, and utterly disregards the knowledge of our future infidelities in deciding whether or not he will offer himself fully. Though God is omniscient, he gives of himself without stint as if he did not know that we would abuse his gift."


"In divine chastity, God has truly given away all power that can be given away, and has kept for himself only those functions which cannot be delegated because they require infinite power. All finite power has been put into in the hands of creatures. Since this is a true giving, and not merely the appearance of gift, it follows that creatures now have a kind of power in the world that God does not have."

 

Is this the problem?

[Basilisa Marie]

If that's the problem, it's not really a problem, seeing as God has given humans that "power" (aka ability to act), and could take it away at any time. It underscores the true "gift" nature of those abilities to act.  If anything it's just implying that we have an important responsibility to act in the world, and not just sit on our butts and wait for God to do everything.  

 

Plus, God does offer himself to us. It's up to us to accept his love and kingship and everything. 

 

Still not sure where the problems really are. 

[rkwright]

Well for me a few things...

And again I would say read the entire article, but the basic argument is that God cannot be held responsible for any sin/evil in the world because God is powerless to do anything about it.

Note in the second paragraph it says that God has given away all of his finite power, but kept his infinite powers - thus God cannot stop sin because He has given away the power (finite power) to do so.

First, and it may be due to my ignorance, but since when do we divide the power of God - whom we also say is ultimately simple.
Second, is it even possible for an infinite God to have finite powers?
Third the idea of God being powerless because he has given away a set of his powers seems to kill any notion of an omnipotent God.

Here's the rest of the argument from the website:

"Throughout human history, the problem of evil has been argued: God has the power to prevent all evil; the knowledge of how to prevent it; and (being perfectly good) must have the desire to prevent it. Thus, if God existed, evil would not exist. This kind of reasoning does not consider that God is not morally free to do evil (that is to act in violation of love) in order to prevent the abuse of his gifts. God’s use of power can never be contrary to his love, and because he has given away all finite power in chaste self-donation, he is no longer directly able to control the events in the world when his gifts are abused –even though this abuse and the suffering caused by it is an infinite offense to him. Because of the chastity of God, the “gifts and call of God are irrevocable” (Romans 11:29). Though he is omnipotent, the perfect outpouring of power and individual importance to created persons in divine chastity causes it to appear as if God is powerless or unresponsive in opposing evil. Consequently, many mistakenly conclude that God is somehow not fully opposed to evil – permitting it as a means to an end."

[iheartjp2]

I think what you're saying is well-meant, but a tad bit of semantic hair-splitting. I don't find any problem with the article and I think the site in general is a wonderful alternative to the rather tone-deaf arguments offered to non-believers by the majority of Catholic apologetics sites.