> Sustenance/governance, and concurrence (SGC): Here I'm getting out of
> my comfort zone, so I'll just give my definitions and will wait to be
> corrected by those more familiar with these concepts. I understand
> sustenance-and-governance to be God "keeping the universe (with all of the
> matter/energy and natural laws) in existence."
In classical doctrine of providence, sustenance (or
preservation) & governance are separate things (in addition to
concurrence). God keeps things in being _and_ directs them to the end
God wants. B. Farley's _The Providence of God_ (Baker, 1988) is a good
treatment.
>And concurrence is God
> "working through his created creatures to do his own work." OK
> In reading previous posts, I must admit to being confused by claims that
> SGC may be equivalent to TA. I would appreciate some clarification by
> answering this question: Does the concept that "SGC (or SG and C; or S, G,
> and C) is a form of TA" have any validity outside a framework that assumes
> predestination, with God controlling *everything*?
To say that God concurs with lawful natural processes means that
at least some of the time God does not act to save creatures from
suffering or death: God doesn't mutate all cancer cells to harmless
forms or keep hurricanes from forming. Thus God allows evil to happen &
in some sense concurs with processes which bring evil. This of course
introduces huge issues of theodicy about which I make only 3 remarks
here:
1) Amos 3:6
2) Through Incarnation & cross, God is also the victim of evil.
3) Governanace means that God brings his ultimate good out of
the whole process, even the evil aspects of it.
2 is the essential & distinctively Christian feature of an adequate
theodicy.
> Otherwise, it seems that "creatures running naturally wild" (doing
> whatever they want, according to MIRM, with no TA)
This is a false dichotomy. God is the one who has willed the
laws of physics, including QM, & who _voluntarily_ acts in accord with
them.
George Murphy