Have I any pleasure at all that
the wicked should die? saith the Lord God: and not that he should return from
his ways, and live? (Ezek. 18:23).
(I)
[Source: Commentary on Ezekiel
18:23; emphasis added]
Since,
therefore, repentance is a kind of second creation, it follows that it is not
in man’s power; and if
it is equally in God’s power to convert men as well as to create them, it
follows that the reprobate are not converted, because God does not wish their
conversion; for if he wished it he could do it: and hence it appears that he
does not wish it. But again they argue foolishly: "Since God
does not wish all to be converted, he is himself deceptive, and nothing can be
certainly stated concerning his paternal benevolence." But this knot is easily
untied; for he does not leave us in suspense when he says, that he wishes all
to be saved. Why so? for if no one repents without finding God propitious, then
this sentence is filled up. But we must remark that God puts on a twofold
character: for he here wishes to be taken at his word. As I have already said,
the Prophet does not here dispute with subtlety about his incomprehensible
plans, but wishes to keep our attention close to God’s word. Now, what are the
contents of this word? The law, the prophets, and the gospel. Now all are
called to repentance, and the hope of salvation is promised them when they
repent. This is true, since God rejects no returning sinner: he pardons all [returning sinners] without exception: meanwhile, this will of God, which he sets forth in his word
does not prevent him from decreeing before the world was created what he would
do with every individual: and as I have now said, the Prophet only shows here, that when we have been converted we
need not doubt that God immediately meets us and shows himself propitious.
----------------------------------------
(II)
Richard A. Muller
(II)
Richard A. Muller
[Source: “A Tale of Two
Wills? Calvin, Amyraut, and Du Moulin on Ezekiel 18:23,” in Calvin and the Reformed Tradition on the Work of Christ and the
Order of Salvation (Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker, 2012)]
The
prophet’s words of universal promise [in Ezekiel 18:23] do not refer [according
to Calvin] to the eternal counsel of God, nor
do they set the universal promise of the gospel against the eternal counsel as
a different will. Rather God
always wills the same thing, presumably, the salvation of the elect, albeit in
different ways, namely, in his eternal counsel and through the preaching of the
gospel ... unlike Amyraut, Calvin is not referring to two revealed
mercies. Indeed, Calvin specifically states that these two apparent ways of
willing are actually ways in which God
wills one and the same thing. Where Amyraut has begun to move toward an
argument concerning two divine mercies and wills, Calvin insists on a single divine volition ... Calvin’s
rather strenuous objections to a notion of two wills, specifically to a view
that would place the universalizing promise of the gospel into some ultimately
secret, and unfulfilled divine will ... What Calvin in no way countenanced was
a notion of a double will in God, one hypothetical to save all, the other
absolute to save the elect: there was
in Calvin’s view, one divine will and one will only, and that, to save the
elect ... Calvin’s intention was to identify, on the one hand, the
particularity of God’s [saving will] and, on the other hand, the universality
not of a distinct will to save but of the preaching of salvation. (pp. 114,
116, 122)
In
the view of Amyraut’s indefatigable opponent, Pierre Du Moulin, Calvin never
hypothesized two divine wills and certainly not ‘conseils de Dieu
frustratoires’ [a frustratred will of God] ... Du Moulin indicates [that] Calvin never spoke [in connection
with Ezekiel 18:23 or anywhere else] of ‘general Predestination, or of a first
and second mercy, or of frustrated counsels of God.’ (pp. 109, 120).
No comments:
Post a Comment