Practical Implications of the Doctrine of Concurrence
The doctrine of divine concurrence, which posits that God actively cooperates with all created causes in every event, carries several practical implications for Christian theology and daily life. One significant implication is the affirmation of God's direct involvement in the world, countering views that suggest God merely established natural laws and then withdrew [2]. This perspective emphasizes that God's efficiency is not limited to the initial creation but extends to the ongoing governance of the world, meaning that everything is not simply the product of fixed laws [2].
For those who adhere to Augustinian theology, a key implication is the certainty of future events, which is seen as consistent with human free agency [3, 7]. This means that while God foreknows and even foreordains what will come to pass, human actions remain free [4]. The certainty of an event's occurrence does not negate the freedom of the agent performing it, a concept that Augustinians have long maintained [3, 7]. This understanding helps to reconcile divine sovereignty with human responsibility, suggesting that God's plan does not coerce human will but rather works through it [3].
Another practical implication relates to the problem of evil and suffering. If God concurs in all events, including those that are difficult or painful, it necessitates a robust theological framework for understanding God's justice and goodness. Charles Hodge argues that God's prerogative to pardon some and not others, or to allow the execution of a just law, is not unjust [1]. This perspective suggests that even in circumstances that appear negative, God's actions are consistent with His nature and His role as moral governor [1].
Furthermore, the doctrine of concurrence underscores the mysterious nature of God's workings. There are truths that Christians must accept even if they cannot fully resolve all objections or difficulties against them [6]. This principle encourages humility in theological inquiry, acknowledging that human understanding is limited when it comes to the infinite wisdom and power of God [6]. The doctrine also distinguishes God's direct efficiency from pantheistic views, which blur the lines between God and creation [5]. Instead, concurrence maintains God's distinctness while affirming His pervasive activity in the world [5].
Sources
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, section 67: does is inconsistent with his nature. (3.) That it is a rightful prerogative, founded not only on the infinite superiority of God and in his proprietorship in all his creatures; but also in his relation as moral governor to the race of sinful men. If even a human sovereign is entitled to exercise his discretion in pardoning one criminal and not another, surely this prerogative cannot reasonably be denied to God. There can be no injustice in allowing the sentence of a just law to be executed upon an offender. And this is all that God does ”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 1, section 41: inspiration, but it is not necessary in order to prove that doctrine that we should first prove the being of God. If he denies that God exerts any direct efficiency in the government of the world, and holds that everything is the product of fixed laws, he cannot believe what the Scriptures teach of inspiration. If the supernatural be impossible, inspiration is impossible. It will be found that most of the objections, especially those of recent date, are founded on unscriptural views of the relation of God to the world, or on the peculiar ”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, section 56: a necessity scarcely less imperative we must believe that all things are known to God from eternity, and that if foreknown their occurrence is certain, we cannot deny that certainty is consistent with free agency without involving ourselves in palpable contradictions. This argument is so conclusive that most theistical advocates of the doctrine of contingency, when they come to deal with it, give the matter up, and acknowledge that an act may be certain as to its occurrence and yet free. They content themselves for the time being with den”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, section 56: edit. Edinburgh, 1849, p. 629. As 301 all things are foreseen all things are inevitably certain as to their occurrence. This is granting all any Augustinian need demand. 2. Another doctrine held by a large part of the Christian world in all ages which of necessity precludes the doctrine of contingency, is that of the foreordination of future events. Those who believe that God foreordains whatever comes to pass must believe that the occurrence of all events is determined with unalterable certainty. It is not our object to prove any of thes”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, section 54: not ours. The difference between this system and Pantheism is little more than nominal. Contingency. Directly opposed to all these schemes of necessity, is the doctrine of contingency, which has been held under different names and 283 variously modified. Sometimes it is called the liberty of indifference; by which is meant, that the will, at the moment of decision, is self-poised among conflicting motives, and decides one way or the other, not because of the greater influence of one motive over others, but because it is indifferent or und”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, section 50: know not. These are familiar and universally admitted facts as well in philosophy as in religion. A thing may be, and often certainly is true, against which objections may be urged which no man is able to answer. There are two important practical principles which follow from the facts just mentioned. First, that it is not a sufficient or a rational ground for rejecting any well authenticated truth that we are not able to free it from objections or difficulties. And, secondly, any objection against a religious doctrine is to be regarded as”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, section 56: § 3. Certainty Consistent with Liberty. Although the doctrine of necessity subverts the foundation of all morality and religion, our present concern is with the doctrine of contingency. We wish simply to state the case as between certainty and uncertainty. The doctrine of necessity, in the proper sense of the word, is antichristian; but the Christian world is, and ever has been divided between the advocates and opponents of the 296 doctrine of contingency. All Augustinians maintain that a free act may be inevitably certain as to its occur”