RE: Shedd on Concursus

  _____

From: George Murphy [mailto:gmurphy@raex.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2004 4:38 PM
To: Rich Blinne; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Shedd on Concursus

Rich -

    I must be missing something, for I see in the extract you've posted only
discussion of creatio ex nihilo & none (at least explicitly) of concursus.

The following was buried in the quote:

But Descartes added a definition of created or secondary substance as "that
which requires the concurrence (concursus) of God, for its existence."

    BTW, I think that the term "cooperation" is preferable to "concurrence,"
for the latter term is open to the understanding that God "accompanies"
creatures but that creatures do not act as genuine causes.

The P&R version of Shedd added a glossary and had the following definition
of concursus.

concursus God's ongoing providential support of the created order. Shedd
worries about this in the context of God's providential support of evil.
Shedd is quite clear that God permits evil, and God's concursus in this case
extends to his maintaining the sinner and the sinner's will as to its
existence and ability to function sinfully. On the other hand, Shedd regards
the sinful element itself as entirely self-actuated or self-moved and not in
any way so moved by God. See also decree, permissive and decree, efficient.
Received on Sun Dec 26 18:50:14 2004