Is puritan eschatology a depart from protestant and reformed eschatology?

A

Angelo Neves

Puritan Board Freshman
Considering the rejection from Chiliastic and apparently all forms of millenarism, as the lutheran rejection in Augsburg Confession, the 42 articles rejection and finally the 2 Helvetic Confession rejection, puritan millenarism in Westminster Standards and Savoy Declaration of Faith are not a depart from the previous protestant and reformed eschatology view?

Ausburg Confession of Faith, Article XVII. Of Christ's Return to Judgment.
1 Also they teach that at the Consummation of the World Christ will appear for judgment, and 2 will raise up all the dead; He will give to the godly and elect eternal life and everlasting joys, 3 but ungodly men and the devils He will condemn to be tormented without end.
4 They condemn the Anabaptists, who think that there will be an end to the punishments of condemned men and devils.
5 They condemn also others who are now spreading certain Jewish opinions, that before the resurrection of the dead the godly shall take possession of the kingdom of the world, the ungodly being everywhere suppressed.
Click to expand...
42 Articles of Faith, Article XLI. Heretics called Millenarii.
They that go about to renew the fable of heretics called Millenarii are repugnant to Holy Scripture, and cast themselves headlong into Jewish dotage.
Click to expand...
2 Helvetic Confession of Faith, Article XI. Of Jesus Christ, True God and Man, the Only Savior of the World, THE SECTS.
We therefore condemn all who deny a real resurrection of the flesh (II Tim. 2:18), or who with John of Jerusalem, against whom Jerome wrote, do not have a correct view of the glorification of bodies. We also condemn those who thought that the devil and all the ungodly would at some time be saved, and that there would be an end to punishments. For the Lord has plainly declared: "Their fire is not quenched, and their worm does not die" (Mark 9:44). We further condemn Jewish dreams that there will be a golden age on earth before the Day of Judgment, and that the pious, having subdued all their godless enemies, will possess all the kingdoms of the earth. For evangelical truth in Matt., chs. 24 and 25, and Luke, ch. 18, and apostolic teaching in II Thess., ch. 2, and II Tim., chs. 3 and 4, present something quite different.
Click to expand...
 
You quoted the other confessions/articles of faith, but not the WCF or the Savoy. What "puritan millenarism" are you referring to IN those documents?
 
Certain premillennial / chiliast ideas are quite clearly at odds with historic reformed thought, like the idea of the temple being rebuilt, sacrifices being resumed, a golden age of carnal delights, Christ descending to earth and establishing an earthly kingdom, etc. The majority of Puritans did not hold to any of these ideas.
I don't believe "optimistic amillennialism" or moderate historical postmillennialism are at odds with the Helvetic Confession. As I have pointed out before, the author of the Helvetic Confession (Bullinger) held that the millennium was 1000 literal years of relative peace and purity in the Church beginning some centuries after Christ and concluding before the end of the age, which, strictly speaking, is "postmillennial". The only difference between his analysis of the millennium and revelation and that of later "puritan postmillennialists" like Rutherford, Vitringa, Durham, Brakel, etc, is that he thought the millennium began with Constantine, and they generally saw it as beginning centuries later, or even in the future. But in terms of what it consists of, they were in agreement, generally speaking.
 
Contra_Mundum said:
You quoted the other confessions/articles of faith, but not the WCF or the Savoy. What "puritan millenarism" are you referring to IN those documents?
Click to expand...
Sorry
I forgot

Savoy Declaration of Faith, Chapter 26, Of The Church
5. As the Lord in his care and love towards his Church, hath in his infinite wise providence exercised it with great variety in all ages, for the good of them that love him, and his own glory; so according to his promise, we expect that in the latter days, antichrist being destroyed, the Jews called, and the adversaries of the kingdom of his dear Son broken, the churches of Christ being enlarged, and edified through a free and plentiful communication of light and grace, shall enjoy in this world a more quiet, peaceable and glorious condition than they have enjoyed.
Click to expand...
Westminster Larger Catechism, Question 191. What do we pray for in the second petition?
In the second petition, (which is, Thy Kingdom come) acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan, we pray that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fullness of the Gentiles brought in; the church furnished with all gospel officers and ordinances, purged from corruption, countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrates; that the ordinances of Christ may be purely dispensed, and made effectual to the converting of those that are yet in their sins, and the confirming, comforting, and building up those that are already converted: that Christ would rule in our hearts here, and hasten the time of His second coming, and our reigning with Him forever: and that He would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of His power in all the world, as may best conduce to these ends.
Click to expand...

Consider that some puritans as Jeremiah Burroughs (Congregational), Benjamin Keach(Baptist) and William Twisse were pre-millenial.

And some works follows a millenarian hope, a specific calling of the jews and/or return to Israel Country...
 
Charles Johnson said:
Certain premillennial / chiliast ideas are quite clearly at odds with historic reformed thought, like the idea of the temple being rebuilt, sacrifices being resumed, a golden age of carnal delights, Christ descending to earth and establishing an earthly kingdom, etc. The majority of Puritans did not hold to any of these ideas.
I don't believe "optimistic amillennialism" or moderate historical postmillennialism are at odds with the Helvetic Confession. As I have pointed out before, the author of the Helvetic Confession (Bullinger) held that the millennium was 1000 literal years of relative peace and purity in the Church beginning some centuries after Christ and concluding before the end of the age, which, strictly speaking, is "postmillennial". The only difference between his analysis of the millennium and revelation and that of later "puritan postmillennialists" like Rutherford, Vitringa, Durham, Brakel, etc, is that he thought the millennium began with Constantine, and they generally saw it as beginning centuries later, or even in the future. But in terms of what it consists of, they were in agreement, generally speaking.
Click to expand...
Could you send this commentary / quote?
 
 
Angelo Neves said:
Sorry
I forgot




Consider that some puritans as Jeremiah Burroughs (Congregational), Benjamin Keach(Baptist) and William Twisse were pre-millenial.

And some works follows a millenarian hope, a specific calling of the jews and/or return to Israel Country...
Click to expand...
Can you find a single classically Reformed theologian that denies the calling of the Jews? Calvin affirms it.

"When the Gentiles shall come in, the Jews also shall return from their defection to the obedience of faith; and thus shall be completed the salvation of the whole Israel of God, which must be gathered from both; and yet in such a way that the Jews shall obtain the first place, being as it were the first-born in God's family." - Commentary on Romans 11:26
 
Angelo Neves said:
Sorry
I forgot
Consider that some puritans as Jeremiah Burroughs (Congregational), Benjamin Keach(Baptist) and William Twisse were pre-millenial.
And some works follows a millenarian hope, a specific calling of the jews and/or return to Israel Country...
Click to expand...
The WLC passage you appeal to amounts to a single, concrete expectation, based mainly on interpretation of Rom.11:15 (and context), having to do with the future hope of a massive Jewish "revival" of sorts. There is nothing unique to "millenarism" that banks on this hope, or demands it be tied to some millenarian (pre- or post-) position. The Savoy passage is a bit more definitive than Westminster, with its hopeful tone respecting the future situation for the church still in the world. In my estimation, the language still comes short of a plain, millenarian commitment.

Given the breadth and ferment of religious fervor among the "puritans"--an historical category so broad it requires constant particular qualification--it is reasonable to suppose there might have been several different strands of eschatology among the framers of Westminster Standards or Savoy. What is confessed in the documents is a consensus, and sets a limit on what all subscribers agree is the Bible's teaching.

There are some negative exclusions in the Standards (which are mainly positive doctrinal expressions). As Westminster proclaims most clearly a doctrine of one, general resurrection and an immediate destination and beginning of the final state (see WCF 33:2), and make no admission of a doctrine of "millennium" or earthly glory-kingdom, it seems strained to accuse the Standards of promoting millenarism. That some millenarians could have yet subscribed, while wishing the confession said more, only indicates that the framers of Westminster did not aim to exclude as many as possible, by setting more limits through explicit condemnation of error.

It is my guess that the great majority of Westminster confessors today are amillennial, with a few more mildly post-mil, and fewer still advocates of a "golden age" post-mil. :2cents:
 
The thing is, John, what – today – is considered "Israel"? The ethnic / political state, or those who have bowed the knee to the King of Israel, Jew and Gentile both?

The covenant with ancient Israel was annulled, and as a geopolitical nation and people there is no longer a ‘covenant’ entity called Israel. The present State of Israel is not the covenant nation, which should be obvious to those who behold it, and who know God’s word.
 
Jerusalem Blade said:
The thing is, John, what – today – is considered "Israel"? The ethnic / political state, or those who have bowed the knee to the King of Israel, Jew and Gentile both?

The covenant with ancient Israel was annulled, and as a geopolitical nation and people there is no longer a ‘covenant’ entity called Israel. The present State of Israel is not the covenant nation, which should be obvious to those who behold it, and who know God’s word.
Click to expand...
Ethnic.

And here is the thing, I don’t feel the need to draw up the timeline or the importance of 1948 or detail everything. I prefer to praise God for His unsearchable wisdom (end of Rom. 11) in this.
 
Hello John,

Messiah-denying ethnic Jews – blood descendants of Abraham – fall under this saying, "For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people (Acts 3:22, 23)", reiterating the LORD through Moses in Deut 18:18, 19. [emphasis added]

That simply means they are no longer the people of God, i.e., they are no longer entitled to the name Israel. Elaborated upon in the brief papers attached below.

"the importance of 1948", as you put it, is another story. Its importance has nothing to do with supposed promises made to true Israel, as "ethnic Jewry" is an imposter Israel comprised of God-designated outcasts, cut off as gristle is cut off from meat by a cleaver.

So what is the importance of 1948? That's a great question, about which we can only surmise. Surely outcast Jewry was brought back into the old land that belonged to the ancient state in the providence of God, but to what end? My surmise is that it is for judgment, and for calling out any elect therein. I know brothers – Messianic Jews – who labor there evangelizing both Jews and Arabs/Palestinians, that some may be brought into God's true Israel.

What judgment – before the final judgment unto Gehenna or Glory – remains to be seen. There are those who fervently desire to obliterate the land with nukes (as they would the U.S. as well) as the End draws near.

"SPIRITUAL IDENTITY THEFT – Stealing God’s Gift", and "ISRAEL HAS NOT BEEN REPLACED BY THE CHURCH" :
 

Attachments

Contra_Mundum said:
The WLC passage you appeal to amounts to a single, concrete expectation, based mainly on interpretation of Rom.11:15 (and context), having to do with the future hope of a massive Jewish "revival" of sorts. There is nothing unique to "millenarism" that banks on this hope, or demands it be tied to some millenarian (pre- or post-) position. The Savoy passage is a bit more definitive than Westminster, with its hopeful tone respecting the future situation for the church still in the world. In my estimation, the language still comes short of a plain, millenarian commitment.

Given the breadth and ferment of religious fervor among the "puritans"--an historical category so broad it requires constant particular qualification--it is reasonable to suppose there might have been several different strands of eschatology among the framers of Westminster Standards or Savoy. What is confessed in the documents is a consensus, and sets a limit on what all subscribers agree is the Bible's teaching.

There are some negative exclusions in the Standards (which are mainly positive doctrinal expressions). As Westminster proclaims most clearly a doctrine of one, general resurrection and an immediate destination and beginning of the final state (see WCF 33:2), and make no admission of a doctrine of "millennium" or earthly glory-kingdom, it seems strained to accuse the Standards of promoting millenarism. That some millenarians could have yet subscribed, while wishing the confession said more, only indicates that the framers of Westminster did not aim to exclude as many as possible, by setting more limits through explicit condemnation of error.

It is my guess that the great majority of Westminster confessors today are amillennial, with a few more mildly post-mil, and fewer still advocates of a "golden age" post-mil. :2cents:
Click to expand...
I think today the great majority WCF confessor are ammilenials too.
But I guess in puritan times, it was not.

The optimism from the confession seems to be Linked to a eartlhy reality too.
And there is a quote from Robert Baillie that seems to put some from Westminster Assembly as millenarist (and I think premil in this case) and Independents

I hope both will teftifie our great refpecls to them fo far as yow could with. Send me the reft of Forbes : I like the book (6) very well, and the man much the better for the book's caufe. I marvell I can find nothing in its index againft the Millenaries : I cannot think the author a Millenarie. I cannot dream why he fhould have omitted ane errour fo famous in antiquitie, and fo troublefome among us ; for the mod of the chiefe divines here, not only Independents, hot others, fuch as Twifs, Marfhall, Palmer, and many more, are exprefs Chiliads. It's needfull, if his judgment be right, that he mould amend that omiffion, by ane exprefs and large Appendix.
The letters and journals of Robert Baillie ... M.DC.XXXVII.-M.DC.LXII : Baillie, Robert, 1599-1662 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
Click to expand...
 
Contra_Mundum said:
The WLC passage you appeal to amounts to a single, concrete expectation, based mainly on interpretation of Rom.11:15 (and context), having to do with the future hope of a massive Jewish "revival" of sorts. There is nothing unique to "millenarism" that banks on this hope, or demands it be tied to some millenarian (pre- or post-) position. The Savoy passage is a bit more definitive than Westminster, with its hopeful tone respecting the future situation for the church still in the world. In my estimation, the language still comes short of a plain, millenarian commitment.

Given the breadth and ferment of religious fervor among the "puritans"--an historical category so broad it requires constant particular qualification--it is reasonable to suppose there might have been several different strands of eschatology among the framers of Westminster Standards or Savoy. What is confessed in the documents is a consensus, and sets a limit on what all subscribers agree is the Bible's teaching.

There are some negative exclusions in the Standards (which are mainly positive doctrinal expressions). As Westminster proclaims most clearly a doctrine of one, general resurrection and an immediate destination and beginning of the final state (see WCF 33:2), and make no admission of a doctrine of "millennium" or earthly glory-kingdom, it seems strained to accuse the Standards of promoting millenarism. That some millenarians could have yet subscribed, while wishing the confession said more, only indicates that the framers of Westminster did not aim to exclude as many as possible, by setting more limits through explicit condemnation of error.

It is my guess that the great majority of Westminster confessors today are amillennial, with a few more mildly post-mil, and fewer still advocates of a "golden age" post-mil. :2cents:
Click to expand...
Thanks for your answer

I think Savoy and Westminster are very close in the point about the jews and the hope.

About general ressurrection, as amil I believe it, but I think the 3 Puritan Confessions don't put it in our terms, as LBCF affirms it as Savoy and WCF, but Benjamin Keach and Hanserd Knollys were premillenials, and Burroughs was premillennial too, as Twisse and Goodwin.
 
TylerRay said:
Can you find a single classically Reformed theologian that denies the calling of the Jews? Calvin affirms it.

"When the Gentiles shall come in, the Jews also shall return from their defection to the obedience of faith; and thus shall be completed the salvation of the whole Israel of God, which must be gathered from both; and yet in such a way that the Jews shall obtain the first place, being as it were the first-born in God's family." - Commentary on Romans 11:26
Click to expand...
In our terms or millenials terms, I see some denying it.

Tuthly, what I've seen that majority that affirms the calling of the jews is millenial too


And the calling leads to a return to Israel land
 
 
Jerusalem Blade said:
Hello John,

Messiah-denying ethnic Jews – blood descendants of Abraham – fall under this saying, "For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people (Acts 3:22, 23)", reiterating the LORD through Moses in Deut 18:18, 19. [emphasis added]

That simply means they are no longer the people of God, i.e., they are no longer entitled to the name Israel. Elaborated upon in the brief papers attached below.

"the importance of 1948", as you put it, is another story. Its importance has nothing to do with supposed promises made to true Israel, as "ethnic Jewry" is an imposter Israel comprised of God-designated outcasts, cut off as gristle is cut off from meat by a cleaver.

So what is the importance of 1948? That's a great question, about which we can only surmise. Surely outcast Jewry was brought back into the old land that belonged to the ancient state in the providence of God, but to what end? My surmise is that it is for judgment, and for calling out any elect therein. I know brothers – Messianic Jews – who labor there evangelizing both Jews and Arabs/Palestinians, that some may be brought into God's true Israel.

What judgment – before the final judgment unto Gehenna or Glory – remains to be seen. There are those who fervently desire to obliterate the land with nukes (as they would the U.S. as well) as the End draws near.

"SPIRITUAL IDENTITY THEFT – Stealing God’s Gift", and "ISRAEL HAS NOT BEEN REPLACED BY THE CHURCH" :
Click to expand...
Are you idealist or futurist?

I'm Amil, but Partial Preterist

I think that Israel was replaced for the entire church that include the jews.
They received the condemnation in 70-73, the great tribulation, and after it, as a show that the church is the loved people
If the Jews keep being God's People in this terms, I think the mosaic covenant keeps alive in some sense
 
Charles Johnson said:
Certain premillennial / chiliast ideas are quite clearly at odds with historic reformed thought, like the idea of the temple being rebuilt, sacrifices being resumed, a golden age of carnal delights, Christ descending to earth and establishing an earthly kingdom, etc. The majority of Puritans did not hold to any of these ideas.
I don't believe "optimistic amillennialism" or moderate historical postmillennialism are at odds with the Helvetic Confession. As I have pointed out before, the author of the Helvetic Confession (Bullinger) held that the millennium was 1000 literal years of relative peace and purity in the Church beginning some centuries after Christ and concluding before the end of the age, which, strictly speaking, is "postmillennial". The only difference between his analysis of the millennium and revelation and that of later "puritan postmillennialists" like Rutherford, Vitringa, Durham, Brakel, etc, is that he thought the millennium began with Constantine, and they generally saw it as beginning centuries later, or even in the future. But in terms of what it consists of, they were in agreement, generally speaking.
Click to expand...
I've find in the quod.lib too

Christes veritie should suffer persecution of the beaste, and that many shuld not beleue the gospel, but rather withstande the same and perisshe. Yet that the Deuill in the meane time shall not haue so great power, as he hath obtey∣ned sins the thousande yeres were finisshed: nother that the gospel should in those thousande yeres be so darkened, as it was after corrupted and depraued. And he toucheth with all certen opinions righte notable and necessarie, and openeth the same, to witte what should be the state of them, which ey∣ther are killed for Christ, or reiecte Antichrist: verely for that their soules do not slepe til the iudgemēt, but liue with Christ in heauen. He treateth moreouer of the first resurrection, and seconde death.
Click to expand...
And S. Iohn himself agayne expoundyng himself sayeth. This is that firste resurrection. Whiche I praye you? by the which menne receyue Christ by the true fayth,* and rise from sinne in the newnes of life. Of this thapostle speaketh muche in the .6. to the Romanes. The same to the Ephes. out of Esaye: awake, sayeth he, that slepeth, and rise from the dead, & Christ shal shine vnto thee. Therfore be they not pertakers of ye first resurrection, so many as nother acknowledge their sinnes, nor be regenerated, nother are quickened by fayth in Christ, nor rise againe with Christ in the newnes of life. The seconde resurrection is that vniuersall resurrection of al flesh: where∣in shall all menne arrise in dede, but with vnlike state for the faithfull rise vnto life euerlastyng: the vnfaythfull to death e∣uerlastyng. Whiche the Lord him selfe also hath repeted out of the .12. chapt. of Daniel, in Iohn the .5. chapt.
Click to expand...
 
Angelo Neves said:
In our terms or millenials terms, I see some denying it.

Tuthly, what I've seen that majority that affirms the calling of the jews is millenial too


And the calling leads to a return to Israel land
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you mean by "In our terms or millennials terms."

Can you quote any classically Reformed author as explicitly denying the latter-day conversion of the Jews?
 
Angelo Neves said:
Are you idealist or futurist?

I'm Amil, but Partial Preterist

I think that Israel was replaced for the entire church that include the jews.
They received the condemnation in 70-73, the great tribulation, and after it, as a show that the church is the loved people
If the Jews keep being God's People in this terms, I think the mosaic covenant keeps alive in some sense
Click to expand...
Hello Angelo, I'm amil.

The "condemnation" was pronounced by the LORD through Moses in Deuteronomy 18:18, 19:

I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.​
_____

From A Poet Arises In Israel,

I say the rabbis have led my people
into the curses of Moses
these past twenty centuries,
for if we had pleased God

and were under His sure covenant blessings
and protection, how is it possible
we had been spewed from the land
to be slaughtered and despised

among the goyim two thousand years
and to end in the ovens of Hitler?
The truth is – and only can be! –
we have followed treasonous leaders

in betrayal of our King,
and have reaped their destruction.
O nation of fools, we,
to be blinded so long!

As the prophets foretold,
the Gentiles came to His light,
and we followed our teachers
into darkness

even unto this blood-filled day!
Cast off the pretenders
who have slain our millions
and return to the one Book we are the people of!​
 
@Angelo Neves
The 1560 Geneva Bible (published before the Second Helvetic Confession) has the following note on Romans 11:26.

"He sheweth that the time shal come that the whole nation of the Jewes thoght not euery one particularly, shalbe joyned to the Church of Christ."

If you're going to claim that the early Reformed writers denied the conversion of the Jews, you're going to have to deal with their interpretations of Romans 11, not merely their interpretations of Revelation 20.
 
Hello Angelo,

You said, "I think the mosaic covenant keeps [is kept] alive in some sense". I will attach Part II of the booklet, A Poet Arises In Israel, which goes into an aspect of that (Part I is not included, save the Table of Contents and Preface). These are the brief sections of Part II.

Are the Covenant Curses of Moses truly on us now?
Holocausts
Watchman, what of the night?
A great promise, and a great hope therefrom​

I write as Jew evangelizing my people after the flesh, seeking to give them spiritual understanding. My hope is that the elect among them will be moved by Messiah's Spirit.
 

Attachments

Thanks
I think after the Great Tribulation there is no more curse upon Israel, because the Old Covenant with them was finished, after it, the specific hardening in their hearts from the Jews was removed, and they become a normal people.
 
Jerusalem Blade said:
Hello Angelo, I'm amil.

The "condemnation" was pronounced by the LORD through Moses in Deuteronomy 18:18, 19:

I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.​
_____

From A Poet Arises In Israel,

I say the rabbis have led my people​
into the curses of Moses​
these past twenty centuries,​
for if we had pleased God​
​
and were under His sure covenant blessings​
and protection, how is it possible​
we had been spewed from the land​
to be slaughtered and despised​
​
among the goyim two thousand years​
and to end in the ovens of Hitler?​
The truth is – and only can be! –​
we have followed treasonous leaders​
​
in betrayal of our King,​
and have reaped their destruction.​
O nation of fools, we,​
to be blinded so long!​
​
As the prophets foretold,​
the Gentiles came to His light,​
and we followed our teachers​
into darkness​
​
even unto this blood-filled day!​
Cast off the pretenders​
who have slain our millions​
and return to the one Book we are the people of!​
Click to expand...
But which is your hermeneutics? Futurism, Idealism, Historicism, Preterism, a Cumulative one?
 
TylerRay said:
@Angelo Neves
The 1560 Geneva Bible (published before the Second Helvetic Confession) has the following note on Romans 11:26.

"He sheweth that the time shal come that the whole nation of the Jewes thoght not euery one particularly, shalbe joyned to the Church of Christ."

If you're going to claim that the early Reformed writers denied the conversion of the Jews, you're going to have to deal with their interpretations of Romans 11, not merely their interpretations of Revelation 20.
Click to expand...
Thanks, Tyler
I had not seen this specific commentary before
It's original commentary (as u sent) is different from the others that I've seen

But is it in the future last days? And does it imply in a calling from Israel city too?
 
Angelo Neves said:
Thanks, Tyler
I had not seen this specific commentary before
It's original commentary (as u sent) is different from the others that I've seen

But is it in the future last days? And does it imply in a calling from Israel city too?
Click to expand...
The notes for both the 1560 and 1599 editions of the Geneva Bible are available for free in multiple places on the internet. I'd encourage you to study them for yourself.

Frankly, brother, it doesn't seem like you've done the research necessary to support your thesis. I've asked twice if you can quote a single classically Reformed writer who denies the conversion of the Jews, and you've ignored my question while apparently still maintaining that it's a Puritan innovation. I don't think you're well versed enough in the literature to make the sweeping assessment that the Puritan and Westminster tradition constitutes a break with prior Reformed thought on the subject of eschatology.
 
TylerRay said:
The notes for both the 1560 and 1599 editions of the Geneva Bible are available for free in multiple places on the internet. I'd encourage you to study them for yourself.

Frankly, brother, it doesn't seem like you've done the research necessary to support your thesis. I've asked twice if you can quote a single classically Reformed writer who denies the conversion of the Jews, and you've ignored my question while apparently still maintaining that it's a Puritan innovation. I don't think you're well versed enough in the literature to make the sweeping assessment that the Puritan and Westminster tradition constitutes a break with prior Reformed thought on the subject of eschatology.
Click to expand...
I've used the 1599 version, but I only see this specific commentary in Romans 11.26, at least I don't remember about to read it before

I will research more about Romans 11, I've research this issue some years ago with the sources that I had, but I will repeat it.

But look that I only asked about the issue.

Thanks again for your answers
 
TylerRay said:
I'm not sure what you mean by "In our terms or millennials terms."

Can you quote any classically Reformed author as explicitly denying the latter-day conversion of the Jews?
Click to expand...
Sorry for answer lately

I think I wanted to say "In Today terms or millenial common terms"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top