GermanReformedHeidelberg
Puritan Board Freshman
It looks to me like every (puritan) postmillennialist also has the interpretation of Romans 11, that there is a future conversion of a preserved Old Testament Israel mentioned in Romans 11.
I am not sure if it is true, that this is always linked together for every theologian,expressing clearly postmillennialism and expressing a opinion on Romans 11.
If there is differences i would be interested, if there are interesting names, that do not hold to this, but still being postmillennial.
I do ask this, because i am curios, why this seems to be so strong linked together.
When you are postmillennial and you believe that all nations will come to Christ, then you do not need a special proof for the japanese people (the proof with the "all nations"-verses is sufficient). So i think that it should not be a problem to interpret Romans 11 like John Calvin and being at the same time a postmillennialist, you would only take away the special attribute about the conversion of the jewish nation, which gets related by the "typical postmillennial" Romans 11 view.
I do not see a real problem to be postmillennial and holding to Calvins view on Romans 11, maybe i oversee something, that is why i ask here for.
At least i saw people trying to show, that Calvin was some way postmillennial, so at him they also can not see a real contradiction out of his Romans 11 interpretation.
[I am from Germany, i am sorry when my text has some bad English or at worse is even suspicious]
All praise to the Lord!
I am not sure if it is true, that this is always linked together for every theologian,expressing clearly postmillennialism and expressing a opinion on Romans 11.
If there is differences i would be interested, if there are interesting names, that do not hold to this, but still being postmillennial.
I do ask this, because i am curios, why this seems to be so strong linked together.
When you are postmillennial and you believe that all nations will come to Christ, then you do not need a special proof for the japanese people (the proof with the "all nations"-verses is sufficient). So i think that it should not be a problem to interpret Romans 11 like John Calvin and being at the same time a postmillennialist, you would only take away the special attribute about the conversion of the jewish nation, which gets related by the "typical postmillennial" Romans 11 view.
I do not see a real problem to be postmillennial and holding to Calvins view on Romans 11, maybe i oversee something, that is why i ask here for.
At least i saw people trying to show, that Calvin was some way postmillennial, so at him they also can not see a real contradiction out of his Romans 11 interpretation.
[I am from Germany, i am sorry when my text has some bad English or at worse is even suspicious]
All praise to the Lord!
Last edited: