Arminian doctrine of divine concurrence

[Stu Weber]

http://evangelicalarminians.org/birc...ne-Concurrence

What are your thoughts about the Arminian doctrine of divine concurrence?

[Todd Erickson]

That it's relational, which is a good start.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I can agree with this:

Roger Olson highlights Arminius's doctrine of God's sovereignty, providence, and concurrence:

Arminius's own theology clearly teaches that God has the right and the power to dispose of his creation, including his creatures, in any way he sees fit. The Dutch theologian allowed no inherent limitation of God by creation but only by God's own character, which is love and justice. "God can indeed do what He wills with His own; but He cannot will to do with His own what He cannot rightfully do, for His will is circumscribed within the bounds of justice."2

But take issue with:

Arminius believed that God's love for justice (or righteousness) was primary, and His love for creatures was secondary. William den Boer explains:

Arminius identifies the twofold love of God as the foundation of religion in general, and of the Christian religion in particular. The first and most important love is that for justice, the second and subordinate love is for humankind. The latter is subordinate because there is one thing that limits it: God's love for justice. In other words, God can love a person only when his justice has been satisfied with respect to that person. And when that is indeed the case, God will also certainly love that man or woman. Arminius goes so far as to argue that any and every form of religion is impossible if it does not maintain God's twofold love, in that order, and with that mutual relationship.3

I might suggest this http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/b...bible_says_so/ and other of Tom's blogs.

[Todd Erickson]

Yeah, that would be kind of like saying "I, as a parent, can only love my child when they are living in justice with me and love me back."

[Paul DeBaufer]

Yeah, that would be kind of like saying "I, as a parent, can only love my child when they are living in justice with me and love me back."

Yeah, that my love of self and my ideals is greater than love of others.

I just don't think it a biblically defensible position.

[Stu Weber]

I guess what is intriguing to me is that I have not come across many Arminian writings describing this doctrine of divine concurrence. It is as if it is kept "under the radar". To quote Olson:

Arminius argued that when God has permitted an act, God never denies concurrence to a rational and free creature for that would be contradictory. In other words, once God decides to permit an act, even a sinful one, he cannot consistently withhold the power to commit it. However, in the case of sinful or evil acts, whereas the same event is produced by both God and the human being, the guilt of the sin is not transferred to God, because God is the effecter of the act but only the permitter of the sin itself.

This is why Scripture sometimes attributes evil deeds to God; because God concurs with them. God cooperates with the sinners who commit them. But that does not mean God is the efficacious cause of them or wills them, except according to his "consequent will." God allows them and cooperates with them unwillingly in order to preserve the sinners' liberty, without which sinners would not be responsible and repentant persons would not enter into a truly personal and loving relationship with God.

Seems like Arminius had a pretty robust doctrine of God's Sovereignty and Divine concurrence, at least more robust than what I thought.