Thank you for restating the problem. Our FRiend Rashputin seems to focus on how ridiculous it is to believe the Holy Spirit would lead some to destruction...in spite of the clear text from IIThess. His rebuttal claims the RCC organization knows this is not what the text says. I am curious if all RCs agree with him and, if so, how they deal with the plain words from the Greek text? "And therefore sends to them God an operation of error for the to believe them the lie (sic)".
it's as if, in "sending strong delusion" as it is written, He only need lift His hand of protection though even in this "lifting" or unprotecting as it were, particular selected delusion can be aimed at specific recipients, at specific times, too.
It's either something along those admittedly vague lines or else (not meaning to contradict what you brought from II Thess) He is in no way precluded for using such, even for demonstration of His glory & might.
Interesting in the passage you bring is the second part of the first sentence "...only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way."
Even then "he who restrains" is still capable of asserting control even AFTER "taken out of the way"
now one here could launch into much of what the "taken out of the way" may mean, yet to cut it short, what do we see in the world today but a general increase in lawlessness (compared to what is much written about in the Word concerning the Laws, both in physical realm, but more importantly spiritual realm application? Ok, I realize there are strong ties between the two "realms" yet the spirit of the law comes before and outweighs the letter).
Nebuchadnezzar comes to mind here also, in regards to "sending strong delusion"...when that king came out of THAT strong delusion, said to have been sent by the Lord to him, what did he do but acknowledge & give praise to the Lord (God of the Hebrews)?
Through Daniel, the Lord termed Nebuchadnezzar "His" servant, also. Food for thought if such hasn't already been mentioned. And if it has, I must confess I'm late to the party, having not closely followed this particular conversation I'm barging into presently. (though I did review #16 and skimmed much of the rest) <8^)
I'll admit my comments here are imperfect, spur-of-the-moment hasty as they are, yet events as outlined in Daniel do much support what can be seen in II Thessalonians, AFAIKT.