Bert Mulder schreef:
(and this is my last post on this thread) I do not see how you can reconcile Ursinus and Calvin with the WMO.
G'day Bert,
Thanks for this, I appreciate it.
Your question tho, can be taken in two ways at least. Do I consider Calvin and Ursinus's position contradictory to the WMO?
Or: Did Calvin and Ursinus consider the WMO contradictory to such doctrines of election and reprobation.
Turretin says that the willing the salvation of all does not entail a contradiction because it is a willing and nilling in different senses.
To the first, I can say no, because the willing and disiring that all men be saved corresponds to the revealed will, while the nilling to actually give and impart life to all corresponds to the decretive will. See Turretin, 1:224 and 1:415. (On conditional promise and offer see 1: 387,394, 415; and 2: 184, 481, 463, 506, for examples.)
God elects and reprobates by will decreed, but wills salvation of all and offers to all salvation by will revealed. And the offer and promises are conditionally offered to all.
To the second question, I can say no, too, because clearly Calvin and Ursinus did not consider that the desire of God that all men be saved, as expressive of his revealed will, did not contradict election and reprobation. I have already posted Ursinus on this, and Turretin. You can scope out Calvin's exegesis of 2 Pet 3:9,
here
and you see his comments on Matthew 23:37 and Ps 81:13 at the C&C blog. So Calvin did not see a contradiction. And recall Ursinus:
Merciful. God's mercy appears in this: 1. That he wills the salvation of all men. 2. That he defers punishment, and invites all to repentance. p 127.
and
God does indeed will that all should be saved, and that, both on account of the desire which he has for the salvation of all, and also because he invites all to seek salvation. p 292.
Remember those Ursinus comments I have already posted?
And there were all those from Calvin on John 12:27 and the lost sheep comments.
Does that answer your question?
Thanks,
David