Predestination and Christianity

Gregory

Now I was reading about Malebranche's opinions on grace and learned that his book on the subject was condemned because of his assertion that God does not give grace to everyone. He was indeed wrong, because the Bible says that all are offered salvation:

John 17:2 says "Just as you gave him power over *all flesh*, so that you have given everything to him, that he might give them life in the Age."

Romans 11:32 says "God shut up everyone in obstinacy so that he might show mercy to everyone."

And 1 Corinthians 15:22 and Romans 15:18, "For just as in Adam all die, so also in the Anointed all will be given life" and "so, then, just as through one transgression came condemnation for all human beings, so also through one act of righteousness came a rectification of life for all humans beings".

This is a very tricky subject when trying to connect it to ideas of what predestination means and even what "God" means. If God is the all powerful complete reality perfect in way which is behind everything, then you would think that God can create a perfect "best of all possible worlds" in which everyone goes to Heaven. But don't we have free will?

What if we understand predestination as a compatibilism between liberty and the infallible determination of grace? Events would happen just as if God was doing them himself, even though we have free will.

Yet why would God not give everyone efficient grace? Why show partiality to some of his children over others in how he gives grace?

This "compatibalism" would, in fact, reverse the meaning of some religious texts, such as: "Which of you men, if you had one hundred sheep, and lost one of them, wouldn't leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one that was lost, until he found it? When he has found it, he carries it on his shoulders, rejoicing."

So it seems to me that, if people go to hell, the idea of God is only rescued if God doesn't know our choices ahead of us doing them.

Thoughts please from anyone interested in religious discussions.

Valentinus

↪Gregory

If you are going to refer to Christianity, treating it as an established body of agreed belief runs into the problem of how many people have died expressing alternate versions.

I wonder whether you care about the answer to your question. If you are talking about a problem other people are having but you do not, what is the point of bringing it up?

javi2541997

↪Gregory

I think Malebranch wanted to express another interpretation or idea about Bible. I am not religious but I do like his quote of "God does not grace to everyone" beacuse probably it is a metaphor meaning that the concept of "grace" is not automatic. I guess only the charitable or humble ones should be able and deserve such "power" of God.
I mean, I see his phrase as a positive commentary towards the Bible. I don't see anything negative.

Gregory

↪Valentinus

I'm reading a book about Malebranche, Leibniz, Arnauld, and theology. You don't have to be Christian to discuss these matters

Gregory

↪javi2541997

You are assuming God can't give grace before someone first sins

Valentinus

↪Gregory

I did not mean to say that you did.
I was asking if you had skin it the game, and if not, what was your interest?

Gregory

↪Valentinus

I read a lot of theology because it's interesting and I like to put my ideas on it out there for comments to them

javi2541997

↪Gregory

I am not assuming anything. I just say that probably God does not give grace to everyone because not all wants or believes such holiness.
I am atheist. Do I deserve the God's grace anyways when I don't even believe on it? I think not...
I guess Malebrache referred to that.

Gregory

↪javi2541997

Malebranche thought that Jesus' humanity gives grace and since he doesn't think of everyone at once he doesn't give grace to all. His critics retorted "he believes many are damned because they have a Savior".

The point of my thread is that God can give everyone grace to be saved before they ever make any moral decisions. The fact that some are said to be damned implies that God is not fully in control of the situation and obtains knowledge of our actions from our free actions themselves. He doesn't know what we will choose. That part is the philosophical part of the discussion

Valentinus

He doesn't know what we will choose. That part is the philosophical part of the discussion — Gregory

It is also "theologically" relevant because the Gospels present Jesus saying that not everybody is going to be saved. The mustard seed grows in some places but not in others.

If it is not really a test, the whole enterprise is absurd.

Gregory

↪Valentinus

I agree that is the case regardless of what religion one believes. Unless the whole subject of predestination is just a mystery, I think there are some things that we can know from reason about it however.

Valentinus

↪Gregory

I have to admit at the outset that I am unable to entertain the idea of predestination as an alternative to the role necessity plays in various attempts to understand causality. I sort of can see it as a premise to a science fiction novel. I usually pass out before finishing those.

I get the idea of accepting fate as a package one cannot avoid. What connects that awareness of the situation to saying the outcome is not dependent upon our response?

Predestination and Christianity

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions