At the moment of creation, God made the occasional causes that would come to regulate the orders of nature finite created things and grace Christ. Neither the Incarnation of the Word, nor for stronger reasons the creation of the world, is a necessary emanation from His nature. A Commentary on Their Correspondence. But so far, we have only examined what Malebranche says about divine action with respect to extant created substances. This work, which infinitely surpasses all others, ought to be a work of pure mercy. He gives an example of a body that seems to be moved without contact from another body.
Holding these two doctrines together makes it all the more pressing for Malebranche to explain how God can be the cause of all things, including evil things, and also be benevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient. Malebranche describes the grace of Christ as the grace of feeling [sentiment], and identifies it as the grace that determines salvation.
According to PC all volitions of God have particular contents, general volitions have particular contents that follow the laws, and particular volitions have particular contents that do not follow the laws. But I do indeed know that sometimes it happens.
Indeed, disssrtation to Malebranche, God did not have any necessary motive for creation. Sine qua non causation: This brings the discussion back to the question that began this section: But, Malebranche is careful to note, just as rain sometimes falls on the sea instead of the earth, sometimes grace is given to hardened hearts rather than souls well- prepared for salvation.
But it seems to me that these moderns have surpassed ancient ideas. The kind of theodicy that Malebranche puts forth is purely intellectual. Johns Hopkins University Press, To answer this question, we must remember that for Malebranche, the laws of nature and grace are perfectly rigid.
Simon Foucher to Leibniz (end )
Arnauld is committed to the idea that miracles are possible and actual— that God has, can, and will intervene in human affairs in order to reward or punish as He sees fit. Cambridge University Press, That is why I do not believe that sin was the sole cause of the incarnation of the Son of God. We now move to the question of why creation occurred.
Logic or the Art of Thinking. Any miracle occurring after creation would be required by the immutable Order itself.
It is in God and in an immutable nature that we see beauty, truth, justice. This means that natural laws extend beyond the physical realm for Malebranche. Edited and translated by Jill Vance Buroker. Manchester University Press, But whether this possible event is ever actual, after the moment of creation, is another matter.
He has these serious reasons when what He owes to His immutability is equal to or of less consideration than what He owes to another one of His attributes in particular. Malebranche emphasizes in the following section that the laws of nature cannot explain the generation of plants either, for grains and seeds prove to be as complex as eggs and fetuses.
copyright© Lloyd Strickland 2003-2019
While Malebranche is clear that these five laws govern the ordinary course of providence, he allows other possible general laws, e. However, when God created the initial conditions He knew every event that would follow from these initial conditions and His general laws. Thus, supposing that God makes me feel the pain of stinging without there happening in my body, or in any creature whatsoever, any changes which determine Him to act in me according to general laws; I say then God acts recherch particular volitions.
Anyone saved by the grace of God prior to the Incarnation was either saved by a miracle—a particular volition of God Himself—or via backward occasional causation. Enter the email address you signed up with and we’ll email you a reset link. For every apparently singular event, it rscherche possible to postulate its occurrence as the effect of a general volition that is unknown to us.
As far as the second proposition, things are more difficult. While Malebranche is clear that God needed to act by particular volitions for initial creation, we now gecherche to ask why He did so. He revived the old arguments of the Academyand advanced them with much ingenuity refherche Malebranche’s doctrine.
This causal story has two separate but complementary axes: We argue that beyond creation and these five categories of general volitions along with a few other rather peculiar general volitionsit is very difficult to see any room for  particular volitions.