Why will you die, O house of Israel?

According to Reppert,

“The debate about Calvinism is hinges heavily, of course, on Scripture passages. To me, one of the most fundamental themes of Scripture is the universality of God's love, which is manifested in acts intended for our salvation.”…John 3:16 is only the tip of the iceberg. Passages like Ezekiel 18:23, I Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9 can be advanced.”

Reppert also interjected Ezk 33:11 into the debate via Carson’s citation of that passage.

I’ve already addressed Jn 3:16, 1 Tim 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9. In each case, I quoted non-Calvinist commentators.

Let’s see what a non-Calvinist commentator has to say about the verses in Ezekiel. (To my knowledge, Allen is not a Calvinist.)

In his introductory comments on 18:21-24, Leslie Allen identifies the historical setting by reference to “the present generation of the exiles” as well as stating that, “for the prophet, the survivors of the 587 catastrophe were a bad lot…nor were the 597 hostages any better,” 1:277-78.

Regarding 33:11, he says “33:10-11 are related to portions of chap. 18, viz. 18:23…Chap. 18 does seem to belong to a post-587 BC period, and so to the second part of Ezekiel’s twofold ministry. Hence parallels with it have a not unreasonable role in chap. 33, which serves to introduce the prophet’s new words of hope,” 2:144.

So the two parallel passages have are framed within Ezekiel’s ministry to the exilic Jewish community.

As such, they don’t address humanity in general. Rather, the chosen people constitute the target-audience. They say nothing about the universality of God’s love. Rather, they say something about God’s love for Israel. And in the OT, God’s love for Israel typically stands in contrast to his view of the heathen world.

I’d add that even in the portion of Ezk 33:11 which Reppert cites via Carson, the “house of Israel” is the specific and explicit referent.

Continuing with Reppert:

“Jesus wept over Jerusalem. What would there be to weep about if Jesus had the power to hit everyone in Jerusalem over the head with irresistible grace and bring them to repentance, which after all is how anybody comes to repentance, on the Calvinistic scheme.”

That’s an allusion to Lk 19:41ff. But as Arminian commentator I. H. Marshall explains, this has reference to the sack of Jerusalem by the Roman armies (717-719).

Does Reppert think that Jesus was impotent to protect the Jews from the Romans?

I have now shown that all of Reppert’s major prooftexts are consistent with Calvinism even if I confined myself to non-Calvinist commentators. Moreover, these are major commentaries by major scholars. I’m not digging around for anything I can find.

Reppert is, of course, at liberty to take issue with their interpretations, and offer a better interpretation–if he can.