Why does postmillennialism seem to be linked to a certain interpretation of Romans 11?

[GermanReformedHeidelberg]

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!

 

[KMK]

Your thread title makes no sense. Do you want me to edit it?

 

[timfost]

Welcome, from Pennsylvania!

I'll let others respond to your post.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

You thread title makes no sense. Do you want me to edit it?

He is not a native English speaker. Thus, he is probably not used to standard English word order.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

To answer the OP, it is fair enough to note that most postmillennialists hold that Romans 11 teaches a mass conversion of the Jews at some point in the future. However, it is also possible to be a postmillennialist without adopting that interpretation of Romans 11. Likewise, it is possible to maintain that Romans 1 teaches a future conversion of the Jews while being an amillennialist.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

He is not a native English speaker. Thus, he is probably not used to standard English word order.

That is also true of Americans don't you think? They don't use the Queen's English

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

That is also true of Americans don't you think? They don't use the Queen's English

As Winston Churchill said, Britain and America are two nations separated by a common language.

 

[arapahoepark]

That is also true of Americans don't you think? They don't use the Queen's English

Three continents divided by a common language.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Come on. You guys know know this to be true of most Millennial positions. Even Premil.

 

[Tom Hart]

Your thread title makes no sense. Do you want me to edit it?

"Why Does Postmillenialism Seem to Be Linked to a Certain Interpretation of Romans 11?"

He is not a native English speaker. Thus, he is probably not used to standard English word order.

The "do" verb in English questions trips people up. Understandably.

 

[GermanReformedHeidelberg]

Your thread title makes no sense. Do you want me to edit it?

Yes, but please do not change too much, just a few words or the order of the words, thank you

 

[User20004000]

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!

Interesting questions. I think Daniel nailed it. One needn’t hold to a future conversion of ethnic Israel to be postmillennial and one may hold to a non postmillennial view while affirming a future conversion.

To your other points, I know of no postmillennialist (golden age type) that denies a future conversion of the Jews. However, I don’t think postmillennialists are necessarily letting their eschatology drive their interpretation of the passage, which I detect you might be inferring from something else you said. (First sentence of your fifth paragraph.)