Thomism and the meaning of punishment

  • Thread starter Thread starter thinkandmull
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

thinkandmull

Guest
**I just want to briefly state my philosophical and theological reasons for rejecting Aquinas’s view of predestination, and then to explain why I believe he held that view.

My personal belief is that if God is Love, He must love everybody personally, as persons, and not like a master giving treats or scraps to a dog. It’s not hard to see the heartlessness of God saying to some people at the end of their lives “my overarching purpose for your existence has always be that you serve as an example of punishment”. Thomas says many times that God sees time “as in a single glance”. Could not this be a justification for the argument of Molinism? I’ve pondered over Romans 9, and I think that St. Paul wasn’t speaking about anyone’s eternal destination in verses 10-23, 27-28; Paul is merely speaking of the extra grace given to some rather than to others in that specific drama of salvation history playing out in that earliest of Christianity’s days. Some are called to “serve” others, who are in turn called to greater glory, resulting in a garden variety of frangrant saints. Verses 19-21 doesn’t mean God won’t give all the grace He can to those sinners at their death. I think this can be proved by Romans 11:32. To argue that Paul meant that God allows sins so he can be merciful, then allows the sins again so there can be eternal punishment doesn’t seem to fit. The whole thesis as it ends on 11:28-36 doesn’t seem to be complete that way. I also don’t feel that justice as an end in itself recognizes what justice is really all about. Finally, as Augustine admits, if God doesn’t desire everyone’s salvation more than he desires some to serve as an example as justice, then our desires would conflict with God, since we are supposed to desire the salvation of our whole species. How could be say the Our Father if we believe in the Thomistic position?**

I believe that Thomas held that view because he, like most Protestants, felt that to them God was hopefully such that if He wanted them to be saved, they certainly will be saved. That psychological makeup is understandable, although it resulted in a hideous theological viewpoint…
 
I believe you have to read through the Summa a couple of times or more before realizing that Thomas does not see predestination that way.

However, I am going to leave it to you to find that mystery - there comes a point when a person has to believe in his “teachers”, in his “doctors”. Thomas is a Doctor of the Church, and in no way a protestant nor like them in how he knows what is true. But, it is for you to exclaim, “I will believe Thomas, and consider my own understanding to be misunderstanding, and continue studying Thomas until I see clearly why he says what he says.”

These forums foster people expecting quick answers, but it takes years to work through the Summa. You have to believe in a teacher quite a bit to spend years listening to him. Do it. Be his student, not above your teacher.
 
I did read Thomas carefully on this and I have all his quotes over at my house. He clearly said that what God’s will necessarily comes true. Therefore He does not want all to be saved more than he wants punishment. He even argues against Paul’s statement that God “desires all men to be saved”, trying to explain it away, and even says once that God “desire neither that evil be done, nor that it not be done”. I’ll post the quotes from him soon, or you can read him for yourself
 
The God of Thomas Aquinas loved people in the sense of giving them gifts, thus is giving life to sinners he was not obliged in love to forgive their sins by giving them efficacious grace. He explicitly says that. NOWHERE does Aquinas say God loves people personally, or that He is concern with getting His whole family to heaven
 
It sounds like you focused on items relating to predestination, giving its simple definition (and it is true). But you neglected something beyond that, concerning the Book of Life (if you have read the Summa as your source of Thomas’ understanding).
Thomas identifies predestination and reprobation as specific requirements of God with certain persons such that required events do come to pass. Jacob was predestined to inherit. Mary was predestined to her role and fullness of grace, etc. Pharaoh was predestined to refuse God, the disciples were predestined to not be lost except the son of perdition. But these are specific people with specific roles required by God for his involvement in our contingent world. But, because of this predestination of some (and reprobation of others) we have Grace abundantly present in the world for us to become inheritors whose names can be writen in the Book of Life.

Here are Thomas’ own words:
For the book of life is the inscription of those ordained to eternal life, to which one is directed from two sources; namely, from predestination, which direction never fails, and from grace; for whoever has grace, by this very fact becomes fitted for eternal life. This direction fails sometimes; because some are directed by possessing grace, to obtain eternal life, yet they fail to obtain it through mortal sin. Therefore those who are ordained to possess eternal life through divine predestination are written down in the book of life simply, because they are written therein to have eternal life in reality; such are never blotted out from the book of life. Those, however, who are ordained to eternal life, not through divine predestination, but through grace, are said to be written in the book of life not simply, but relatively, for they are written therein not to have eternal life in itself, but in its cause only. Yet though these latter can be said to be blotted out of the book of life, this blotting out must not be referred to God, as if God foreknew a thing, and afterwards knew it not; but to the thing known, namely, because God knows one is first ordained to eternal life, and afterwards not ordained when he falls from grace.
Reply to Objection 3: The way in which one is said to be blotted out of the book of life is that in which one is said to be written therein anew; either in the opinion of men, or because he begins again to have relation towards eternal life through grace; which also is included in the knowledge of God, although not anew.
Click to expand...
None of us can know if we were chosen for a special role in the guarantee of the gates of Hell not prevailing against the Church, but people were chosen and do hold special places of honor in heaven for willing and doing what they were predestined to. But through them we also have hope of life through Grace. When Thomas discusses the Angels, he makes an interesting statement about who can enter beatitude, “Now the merit of beatitude in angel and man alike can be from merely one act; because man merits beatitude by every act informed by charity” [which is infused with Grace]. There are two ways to heaven. One is predestination and the other is remaining in Grace (yet the predestined remain in Grace willingly). There are two ways to perdition. One is reprobation and the other is falling into mortal sin and abandoning Grace (which the reprobate also do willingly).

Now, read Thomas more as his student than as his critic - he will show you a God who desires intimate friendship and life for all, and he will ignite such an overwhelming understanding of your personal friendship with God and His with you that surpasses anything you have known.
 
I do read Aquinas and am more often disappointed then amazed (though that happens too). I was raised to believe he was near infallible.

Your quote even speaks of “predestination, which direction never fails”. Thomas Aquinas believed that the elect are given efficacious grace, which they can refuse, but certainly won’t, while everyone else is given sufficient grace, by which they can attain eternal life, but they will infallibly not. Have you not read what Aquinas wrote in commentary on Romans 9? God could give everyone efficacious grace and save all, but Aquinas believed God didn’t want all to be saved because He doesn’t love everyone as persons:

Objection 1. It seems that God reprobates no man. For nobody reprobates what he loves. But God loves every man, according to (Wisdom 11:25): “Thou lovest all things that are, and Thou hatest none of the things Thou hast made.” Therefore God reprobates no man.

Reply to Objection 1. God loves all men and all creatures,** inasmuch as He wishes them all some good; but He does not wish every good to them all. So far, therefore, as He does not wish this particular good–namely, eternal life–He is said to hate or reprobated them.

Election and love, however, are **differently **ordered in God, and in ourselves: because in us the will in loving does not cause good, but we are incited to love by the good which already exists; and therefore we choose someone to love, and so election in us precedes love. In God, however, it is the reverse. For His will, by which in loving He wishes good to someone, is the cause of that good possessed by some in preference to others. Thus it is clear that love precedes election in the order of reason, and election precedes predestination. Whence all the predestinate are objects of election and love.

newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm

I don’t mind a philosopher/theologian making mistakes, but believing something akin to Calvinism (who do believe in free will by the way) is inhuman in my book. God sould want his whole family in heaven (the Catechism of Trent said God is the Father of all).

Aquinas also tries to explain away quotes that disagree with his opinion. On the possibility of an eternal world and Aristotle, he says: Firstly, because, both in Phys. viii and in De Coelo i, text 101, he premises some opinions, as those of Anaxagoras, Empedocles and Plato, and brings forward **reasons **to refute them. Secondly, because **wherever **he speaks of this subject, he quotes the testimony of the ancients, which is not the way of a demonstrator, but of one persuading of what is probable. Thirdly, because he expressly says (Topic. i, 9), that there are dialectical problems, about which we have nothing to say from reason, as, ‘whether the world is eternal.’

I just read Topics i, 9 and it doesn’t say anything about an eternal world. Further, his “firstly” nullifies his “secondly” there. Finally, I finished Aristotles Physics today, and he says of those who believe in a creation of the world “in fact, such a view can hardly be described as anything else than fantastic… We have shown there must always be motion”. In iii.6 he specifically calls creation “impossible”.
 
The sum total of the Predestined and Reprobate does not equal 100%. They are there so that Grace may be available to the vast majority of people to cooperate with contingently and freely.

When Thomas discusses predestination, he is discussing a fact, that God predestines some people, for the guarantee that his Grace continues on the earth.
Some other people he leaves reprobate, so that his action with Grace will happen as he intends.

These are not the majority of people. You are neither one of the reprobate nor one of the predestined, nor must you consider yourself to be. You are one who has Grace present in the world in front of you because some, like Mary, were predestined, and some, like Pharaoh, were denied the presence of Grace when confronted by God.

Do not think it was easy for Mary to be predestined, to tell Joseph, “I’m pregnant” or to watch nails go into her son’s hands as he screamed, then take him dead into her arms. Predestination involves an intense pain that none of us care to bear. But God puts them through it, is with them by his Grace so they have hope, and then weeps as he sees them bear what he must have them bear for his will to be done so that we, also, can be written in the book of life, we who are neither predestined to glory nor reprobation.
 
Thomas clearly believed God could saved everyone but wills not too: newadvent.org/summa/1019.htm#article6

Wherefore we must say otherwise that in predestination two things are to be considered–namely, the divine ordination; and its effect. As regards the former, in no possible way can predestination be furthered by the prayers of the saints. For it is not due to their prayers that anyone is predestined by God. As regards the latter, predestination is said to be helped by the prayers of the saints, and by other good works; because providence, of which predestination is a part, does not do away with secondary causes but so provides effects, that the order of secondary causes falls also under providence.
newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm#article8

If you read his interpretation of Romans 9, you’ll see he believed that the whole of creation, not individual salvation, was what was important to God: that is, that the whole picture of creation show his glory, both in justice and in mercy. Therefore he would damn most, though He could save them, but have mercy on the very few, who would delight in the pains of the damned. That is the doctrine of him whom you haven’t read deeply enough
 
“Hence we must say that the distinction and multitude of things come from the intention of the first agent, who is God. For He brought things into being in order that His goodness might be communicated to creatures, and be represented by them; and because His goodness could not be adequately represented by one creature alone, He produced many and diverse creatures, that what was wanting to one in the representation of the divine goodness might be supplied by another. For goodness, which in God is simple and uniform, in creatures is manifold and divided and hence the whole universe together participates the divine goodness more perfectly, and represents it better than any single creature whatever.” (Summa Theologica 1, 47, 1)
“Hence in natural things species seem to be arranged in degrees; as the mixed things are more perfect than the elements, and plants than minerals, and animals than plants, and men than other animals; and in each of these one species is more perfect than others. Therefore, as the divine wisdom is the cause of the distinction of things for the sake of the perfection of the universe, so it is the cause of inequality. For the universe would not be perfect if only one grade of goodness were found in things. It is part of the best agent to produce an effect which is best in its entirety; but this does not mean that He makes every part of the whole the best absolutely, but in proportion to the whole; in the case of an animal, for instance, its goodness would be taken away if every part of it had the dignity of an eye. Thus, therefore, God also made the universe to be best as a whole, according to the mode of a creature; whereas He did not make each single creature best, but one better than another.” (1, 47, 2)
“The perfection of the universe requires that there should be inequality in things, so that every grade of goodness may be realized. Now, one grade of goodness is that of the good which cannot fail. Another grade of goodness is that of the good which can fail in goodness, and this grade is to be found in existence itself; for some things there are which cannot lose their existence as incorruptible things, while some there are which can lose it, as things corruptible. As, therefore, the perfection of the universe requires that there should be not only beings incorruptible, but also corruptible beings; so the perfection of the universe requires that there should be some which can fail in goodness, and thence it follows that sometimes they do fail. Now it is in this that evil consists, namely, in the fact that a thing fails in goodness.” (1, 48, 2)
“God and nature and any other agent make what is best in the whole, but not what is best in every single part, except in order to the whole, as was said above. And the whole itself, which is the universe of creatures, is all the better and more perfect if some things in it can fail in goodness, and do sometimes fail, God not preventing this. This happens, firstly, because “it belongs to Providence not to destroy, but to save nature,” as Dionysius says; but it belongs to nature that what may fail should sometimes fail; secondly, because, as Augustine says, “God is so powerful that He can even make good out of evil.” Hence many good things would be taken away if God permitted no evil to exist; for fire would not be generated if air was not corrupted, nor would the life of a lion be preserved unless the *** were killed. Neither would avenging justice nor the patience of a sufferer be praised if there were no injustice.” (1, 48, 2)
“The reason for the predestination of some, and reprobation of others, must be sought for in the goodness of God. Thus He is said to have made all things through His goodness, so that the divine goodness might be represented in things. Now it is necessary that God’s goodness, which in itself is one and undivided, should be manifested in many ways in His creation; because creatures in themselves cannot attain to the simplicity of God. Thus it is that for the completion of the universe there are required different grades of being; some of which hold a high and some a low place in the universe. That this multiformity of grades may be preserved in things, God allows some evils, lest many good things should never happen, as was said above. Let us then consider the whole of the human race, as we consider the whole universe. God wills to manifest His goodness in men; in respect to those whom He predestines, by means of His mercy, as sparing them; and in respect of others, whom he reprobates, by means of His justice, in punishing them. This is the reason why God elects some and rejects others. To this the Apostle refers, saying (Rm. 9:22,23): “What if God, willing to show His wrath (that is, the vengeance of His justice), and to make His power known, endured with much patience (allowed) vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction; that He might show the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He hath prepared unto glory”; and (2 Tim. 2:20): “But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver; but also of wood and of earth; and some, indeed, unto honor, but some unto dishonor.”” (1, 23, 5)
 
“Blindness is a kind of preamble to sin. Now sin has a twofold relation–to one thing directly, viz. to the sinner’s damnation–to another, by reason of God’s mercy or providence, viz. that the sinner may be healed, in so far as God permits some to fall into sin, that by acknowledging their sin, they may be humbled and converted, as Augustine states (De Nat. et Grat. xxii). Therefore blindness, of its very nature, is directed to the damnation of those who are blinded; for which reason it is accounted an effect of reprobation. But, through God’s mercy, temporary blindness is directed medicinally to the spiritual welfare of those who are blinded. This mercy, however, is not vouchsafed to all those who are blinded, but only to the predestinated, to whom ‘all things work together unto good’ (Romans 8:28). Therefore as regards some, blindness is directed to their healing; but as regards others, to their damnation; as Augustine says (De Quaest. Evang. iii). Every evil that God does, or permits to be done, is directed to some good; yet not always to the good of those in whom the evil is, but sometimes to the good of others, or of the whole universe: thus He directs the sin of tyrants to the good of the martyrs, and the punishment of the lost to the glory of His justice. God does not take pleasure in the loss of man, as regards the loss itself, but by reason of His justice, or of the good that ensues from the loss.” (1, 2, 79, 4)
“The everlasting punishments of the wicked will not be altogether useless. For they are useful for two purposes. First, because thereby the Divine justice is [preserved] which is acceptable to God for its own sake.” newadvent.org/summa/2079.htm#article4
 
Thomas Aquinas believed there were two books of Life, one in which those chosen by God to be led to good works were inscribed, and the other in which those in a state of grace where written. The purpose of this thread was to refute the Thomistic doctrine that justice is an end in itself
 
Your thread purpose was to refute Aquinas’ definition of predestination, which you have not done.

But you have clearly made it plain that you think predestination refers to all humans, some to heaven and the remainder to hell. This is not true, it is not “universal” but selective of those who have and are elected and called to special tasks. Predestination is something to thank God for, that Mary was predestined, etc… It made it possible for the rest of us to have the Gospel available to us.

Thomas wrote, as quoted by you: "some, indeed, unto honor, but some unto dishonor.”
He did not write, "some, indeed, unto honor, and the REMAINDER unto dishonor.” But you think he means some are predestined and only they go to heaven, and all the rest are reprobate and they go to hell. That is fully incorrect. The correct formula is " SOME PREDESTINED + SOME REPROBATE + THE REMAINDER NOW HAVE GRACE AVAILABLE = 100% "

God predestined Mary so that we would come to meet her Son.
God reprobated Pharaoh for the same reason, so that there would be Moses and David and finally Mary and Jesus.
And the REMAINDER of us have the Gospel of her Son, our Lord, and his Grace.

So, he did not predestine the billions of others - instead through the predestination of a few and the reprobation of a few he made his goodness and Grace known and available to those billions.
 
Many protesters to the Catholic Faith read “Jacob I loved and Esau I hated” or they read “I will harden Pharaoh’s heart” and then they conclude, “We are all predestined and can do nothing about it”.
Many read “Go and sell all you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come and follow me” and “With God all things are possible”. And these conclude there is no predestination.

But to the Catholic Faith, both are true and neither is the source of either overconfidence (pride) nor despair.

How are both true, that there is predestination and there is no predestination, but free will cooperating with Grace?

Thomas answers in the Summa, First Part, Question 23 AND Question 24.
Question 23 is how he vouchsafes (guarantees) that Question 24 will be possible. You are found in Question 24, those written in the book of life “relatively”, as am I. Question 23 is not about you directly, but you are not possible in Question 24 unless others are specifically defined by Question 23.

I have heard people say that there were other women in Israel that God was watching to see if they matched would choose to be what Mary chose, until finally one did choose (Mary) and then she, by chance, ended up being the Messiah’s mother. But that is not true. She was predestined, filled with Grace from conception, etc., as prophesied. Because she was predestined, the Certainty of Christ coming when he came and doing what he did at Cana is reliable. And otherwise, we would still be waiting for the Messiah, and Daniel would not have written “Seventy weeks of years”

You have access freely because Mary was formed to a predestined being and role.
 
“3For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:3-4).

I find this discussion very interesting and am learning a whole lot from your posts. But doesn’t St. Thomas Aquinas teach that our Lord wills that all men be saved, as the Scripture says?
 
thinkandmull said:
Have you not read what Aquinas wrote in commentary on Romans 9? God could give everyone efficacious grace and save all, but Aquinas believed God didn’t want all to be saved because He doesn’t love everyone as persons:
Click to expand...
I understand that God does not wish to give every person efficacious grace, but I am having some difficulty understanding that God doesn’t love everyone as persons, given that in Isaiah 49:15 He says:“Can a woman forget her infant, so as not to have pity on the son of her womb? and if she should forget, yet will not I forget thee.” And seeing God is our Father, how can His relationship with us NOT be personal like a father’s? God bless you.
 
ready said:
“3For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:3-4).

I find this discussion very interesting and am learning a whole lot from your posts. But doesn’t St. Thomas Aquinas teach that our Lord wills that all men be saved, as the Scripture says?
Click to expand...
Paul, in writing to Timothy, is doing something similar to what he did in Romans - he is emphasizing that salvation is not limited to a people that has certain traits (the Jews) but is for all people (Jews and Gentiles), not by a trait they possess, but by a trust they have in the Gospel they heard from one sent to them. In chapter one of 1st Timothy, he portrays the people who would limit salvation to a certain group:
3 As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, 4 nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith.
Click to expand...
So, then in Chapter two he specifically says it is for all people, not just those who have a certain genealogy, etc., and calls Timothy to pray that God provide a peaceful environment for the propagation of this Gospel to all, Jew and Gentile alike.

However, Paul knows there are special people set in place by God to guarantee this Gospel exists in the world for us. He speaks of “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” in Romans, and also in Romans 9 he writes:
17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
Click to expand...
Because it was said to Pharaoh does not mean it is universal. The whole picture of Romans 9 is not of how God deals with individuals universally, but how he guaranteed that the Gospel would be for all peoples. You can see it toward the end of the Chapter:
30 What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law
Click to expand...
Now we know that not all Gentiles believe in Christ, yet Paul here says the “Gentiles have attained righteousness”. And we know that many Jews have believed in Jesus, most notably the Apostles, themselves, yet Paul says, “Israel did not succeed”. God rejected Israel but did not reject individuals, God accepted the Gentiles but there are individuals who are not Christian. Yet, the Gospel is here for everyone because of his choice before birth of Jacob and his hardening of Pharaoh.
 
John_Martin said:
Paul, in writing to Timothy, is doing something similar to what he did in Romans - he is emphasizing that salvation is not limited to a people that has certain traits (the Jews) but is for all people (Jews and Gentiles), not by a trait they possess, but by a trust they have in the Gospel they heard from one sent to them. In chapter one of 1st Timothy, he portrays the people who would limit salvation to a certain group:So, then in Chapter two he specifically says it is for all people, not just those who have a certain genealogy, etc., and calls Timothy to pray that God provide a peaceful environment for the propagation of this Gospel to all, Jew and Gentile alike.

However, Paul knows there are special people set in place by God to guarantee this Gospel exists in the world for us. He speaks of “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” in Romans, and also in Romans 9 he writes: Because it was said to Pharaoh does not mean it is universal. The whole picture of Romans 9 is not of how God deals with individuals universally, but how he guaranteed that the Gospel would be for all peoples. You can see it toward the end of the Chapter: Now we know that not all Gentiles believe in Christ, yet Paul here says the “Gentiles have attained righteousness”. And we know that many Jews have believed in Jesus, most notably the Apostles, themselves, yet Paul says, “Israel did not succeed”. God rejected Israel but did not reject individuals, God accepted the Gentiles but there are individuals who are not Christian. Yet, the Gospel is here for everyone because of his choice before birth of Jacob and his hardening of Pharaoh.
Click to expand...
Ah, I now understand. Thanks so much for your good explanation. Could you please help me with my other post? Here it is:

I understand that God does not wish to give every person efficacious grace, but I am having some difficulty understanding that God doesn’t love everyone as persons, given that in Isaiah 49:15 He says: “Can a woman forget her infant, so as not to have pity on the son of her womb? and if she should forget, yet will not I forget thee.” And seeing God is our Father, how can His relationship with us NOT be personal like a father’s? God bless you.

I understand that God is concerned with all of His creation as a whole and that He is concerned about His glory and honor being manifested in all of His creation, but isn’t He also concerned with each of us individuals, as a loving father is with his children? Thanks in advance for any help you can offer! I greatly appreciate your posts!
 
ready said:
Ah, I now understand. Thanks so much for your good explanation. Could you please help me with my other post? Here it is:

I understand that God does not wish to give every person efficacious grace, but I am having some difficulty understanding that God doesn’t love everyone as persons, given that in Isaiah 49:15 He says: “Can a woman forget her infant, so as not to have pity on the son of her womb? and if she should forget, yet will not I forget thee.” And seeing God is our Father, how can His relationship with us NOT be personal like a father’s? God bless you.

I understand that God is concerned with all of His creation as a whole and that He is concerned about His glory and honor being manifested in all of His creation, but isn’t He also concerned with each of us individuals, as a loving father is with his children? Thanks in advance for any help you can offer! I greatly appreciate your posts!
Click to expand...
Let me take one example, of Jacob and Esau - “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated”, and while this will confuse things, it is useful in this question.
God predestined Jacob to be the one through whom the Messiah would be born, not Esau. Did he “hate” Esau, such as we know hate, and condemn him to Hell? The promises from Abraham to Isaac and then Jacob were that all nations would be blessed via the choosing of these three, their predestination. It happened later with Jacob and Esau that they were reconciled. God rejected Esau as the agent of being his vocational tool in delivering Christ to us, but he still loved Esau as a person, and Jacob loved Esau as well.

As for Pharaoh, God hardened his heart in the face of the commands to let the people go - we have no idea of how God regarded Pharaoh after that, but he was predestined to that one set of actions that had to happen. After that, God’s purpose for his Gospel was in motion, so Pharaoh was no longer an instrument to be wielded in building the Kingdom of Israel, he was another person God could still love.

As I said, this would cloud the issue, because God indeed predestined various people to be faithful, overcome, and triumph in the Faith so that it would be here today.
 
John_Martin said:
Let me take one example, of Jacob and Esau - “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated”, and while this will confuse things, it is useful in this question.
God predestined Jacob to be the one through whom the Messiah would be born, not Esau. Did he “hate” Esau, such as we know hate, and condemn him to Hell? The promises from Abraham to Isaac and then Jacob were that all nations would be blessed via the choosing of these three, their predestination. It happened later with Jacob and Esau that they were reconciled. God rejected Esau as the agent of being his vocational tool in delivering Christ to us, but he still loved Esau as a person, and Jacob loved Esau as well.

As for Pharaoh, God hardened his heart in the face of the commands to let the people go - we have no idea of how God regarded Pharaoh after that, but he was predestined to that one set of actions that had to happen. After that, God’s purpose for his Gospel was in motion, so Pharaoh was no longer an instrument to be wielded in building the Kingdom of Israel, he was another person God could still love.

As I said, this would cloud the issue, because God indeed predestined various people to be faithful, overcome, and triumph in the Faith so that it would be here today.
Click to expand...
I understand all that you are saying. Thanks for the explanation, John!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top