No Divine Intervention In Human History (October 8) suggests to me that John Guillaumier excludes all historical facts speaking of God’s part in “human history”. Holy Scripture, even as a mere historical book, presents us with many such “interventions The history of Israel leaving Egypt, the fire on Sodom, miraculous crossings of rivers, resuscitation of such humans as Lazarus and the son of the widow of Nairn, Christ’s own rising from the dead, facts narrated in the Acts of the Apostles such as the conversion of St Paul, etc. Are these not “divine interventions”?
Facts denoting no “intervention”, such as the destruction of churches and devastations by earthquakes like that of Lisbon in 1755 mentioned by Mr Guillaumier are no arguments against “divine intervention” on other occasions. The fact that, for some reason or other known exclusively to Him, God does not “intervene” on this or that occasion, absolutely does not exclude the truth of “interventions” on other occasions. It is God, and God alone, who judges when He should intervene, not man’s expectations!
Mr Guillaumier gives us a list of historians who “found no evidence of divine intervention in human history”. But he failed to quote their exact words supporting his assertion. I am sure Mr Guillaumier has heard of countless historians/philosophers, not less great than those mentioned by him, who have taught a contrary doctrine!
But let us stick to those mentioned by Mr Guillaumier. Christian writers say that Voltaire’s is a “negative philosophy” intent on withdrawing man from revealed religion. Voltaire was an apostate and incredulous but he admitted God’s existence and future life. It was he who wrote “Si Dieu n’existait pas, it faudrait l’inventer” in a letter to the atheist author of a book.
Edward Gibbon believed only what was common to Catholics and Protestants. David Hume was under the influence of Locke, was sceptic and went so far as to deny the very principle of causality, as can be seen in his treatise on human nature, etc.
Herder studied under Kant: Even as a Protestant, he is not very much of an orthodox. According to Hegel, all Scripture’s history is “allegories and myths”. Hegel taught the most monstrous error imaginable when he said that all departs and ends in the principle of the “idea” of God and that the “idea” itself is God: His philosophy is a “travesty” of the revealed word and makes a parody of Christianity.
As for Montesquieu, one notes that he was brought up in the school of theistic rationalism. His work The Spirit Of Laws was examined by the Sorbonne University and found very defective. Among other errors, he taught: “That there was never a religion more worthy of man than the religion of the Stoics, that a husband can send his wife away if found sterile, that usury is something licit, that the most holy monks of the Catholic Church can be put at par with the penitent idolaters of the Indies”. The Catholic Church once warned clerics not to be deceived by the celebrity of the name of Montesquieu. (All the contents of this paragraph have been taken from various authors.)
I remember when, taking the opportunity from a speech of Benedict XVI at Regensburg, Mr Guillaumier gave us a list of “abuses” connected with the papacy: The Pope had then criticised reason as it evolved in the West since the Enlightenment, showing that efforts to exclude God are only a false “enlightenment”. As we know from recent speeches, Benedict XVI is still worried about efforts to exclude God. I am sure this of “no divine intervention in human history” is not one such effort!