http://dhspriory.org/thomas/QDdePotentia3.htm#3:7

I'm a bit confused about Aquinas's concurrentism. From what I understand the case to be, everything in the universe will depend on God for its existence and its action. What I'm confused with here, is the term 'act.' Is concurrentism supposed to be the thesis that you need more than just the 4 causes for a thing to operate in the way that it does? Isn't it acceptable for a concurrentist to admit to the fact that all the formal and final causes depend upon God for its existence? And if not, why do we have to commit ourselves to saying that there is an additional notion of God causing things.

So in short, is it not acceptable to say, "Everything that is in the universe, depends upon God for its formal properties and final causes?" If this fails for concurrentism, what exactly do we mean here, that God concurrently causes things, despite the fact that a substance, although brimming with power, and though still dependent on God for its formal and final causes, is insufficient to act?

Please correct me in any way, shape or form. I have read Feser's article on Concurrentism, but I'm still unclear over here as to why we need to go beyond admitting the above for concurrentism.
 

Last edited by Dennis (9/05/2015 10:11 am)