puritan lad wrote:Really? Let's see how the Reformers themselves viewed certain passages of Scriptures.
I'm pretty well aware of how a number of the Reformers themselves viewed certain passages of Scripture. I find it interesting that you've quoted from those Reformers (and post-Reformation Protestants), who were Historicist in their eschatology (with the possible exception of Luther and Calvin, whose eschatology is still debated).
(John Calvin on Matthew 24:34)
At best this tells us that Calvin held the entire Olivet prophecy to be past. It does not necessitate that he was a Praeterist.
(Martin Luther on Galatians 4:25,26 ; The End of the 'World')
This shows Luther's Replacement Theology very clearly (an integral part of his vicious anti-Semitism), but does not prove that he was a Praeterist.
(Jonathan Edwards Miscellany #1199)
This shows that Edwards saw a 'coming of Christ' in the Olivet prophecy. So do Historicists. It does not prove that he was a Praeterist. I direct you to his work 'History of Redemption' (particularly to
here).
(John Gill on Matthew 24:34 ; Forty Years and That Generation)
At best this tells us that Gill held the entire Olivet prophecy to be past. It does not necessitate that he was a Praeterist. He most certainly was not a Praeterist (I have his commentary on the Bible), he was a confirmed Historicist, and he believed completely in the restoration of the Jewish people to their land.
(John Owen on Matthew 24:30)
This shows that Owen saw a 'coming of Christ' in the Olivet prophecy. So do Historicists. It does not prove that he was a Praeterist. He most certainly was not a Praeterist (I have a couple of his works), he was a confirmed Historicist, and he believed completely in the restoration of the Jewish people to their land.
(Matthew Henry on Luke 21:29)
This tells us that Henry believed the Olivet prophecy foretold the ruin of the Jewish nation. Historicists agree. It does not prove that he was a Praeterist. He most certainly was not a Praeterist (I have his commentary on the Bible), he was a confirmed Historicist.
(John Gill - Of the Abrogation of the Old Covenant)
This doesn't prove that Gill was a Historicist either.
I might as well ask you to be careful about quoting from
http://www.godhascastofftheJews.com. I've been reading their material (and identifying their errors), for a few years now.
A few may have expected the Jews to return. A VERY few.
Well more than 'a very few', but we'll get to that later.
You'll be hard pressed to find evidence of this in their writings, and you certainly won't find any belief in a return to animal sacrifices in a third Jewish temple (which also isn't mentioned anywhere in the Bible.
We'll see.
I direct your attention first to Ian Murray's excellent work 'The Puritan Hope' (1971).
I quote:
In conclusion, it may be helpful to attempt a summary of the different views on unfulfilled prophecy which were current among the main-line Puritans:
1. A small number continued the view current among the early Reformers that the Scriptures predict no future conversion of the Jews and that the idea of a 'golden age' in history is without biblical foundation. The most able spokesmen for this position were Alexander Petrie and Richard Baxter.
2. A larger number appear to have held the belief of Martyr and Perkins that the conversion of the Jews would be close to the end of the world. This was probably the dominant view at least until the 1640's.
Emphasis mine. This is the first important issue - that the larger number of the mainline Puritans believed in the large scale converison of the Jewish people
as a nation, to Christ, denying that they had been cast off (even if they didn't believe in a return of the Jews to their land as a nation).
These included:
* 1551 (d), Martyn Bucer
* 1560, Theodore Beza
* 1568, Peter Martyr
* 1579, William Perkins
* 1620, Elnathan Parr
* 1627, John Henry Alsted
* 1630, Richard Sibbes
* 1645, Richard Ballie
* 1650, Moses Wall
* 1657, Thomas Hall
* 1669, Increase Mather
* 1680, Richard Cameron
Murry mentions also William Strong, William Bridge, George Gillespie, Thomas Manton, John Flavel, David Dickson, George Hutcheson, Jeremiah Burroughs, and William Greenhill (I'm afraid I don't have the time to append all their personal dates, but I can direct you to Murry's work online if you wish to read it for yourself).
My question to you is 'Do you hold this same belief or not?'.
Now for a list of men who believed not only in the conversion of the Jews to Christ as a nation, but who also believed in the restoration of the Jews to their land, as a nation.
They aren't all Puritans of course, but you'll see some significant Puritan names here:
* 1605, Thomas Brightman
* 1621, William Gouge
* 1621, Sir Henry Finch
* 1649, Ebenezer and Joanna Cartwright
* 1649, John Owen
* 1654, Thomas Goodwin
* 1655, John Tillinghast
* 1657, James Durham
* 1685, Matthew Poole
* 1695, William Torrey
* 1701, Robert Fleming
* 1727, Isaac Newton
* 1748, John Gill
* 1754, Thomas Newton
* 1758, T Osborne
* 1763, Lachlan Taylor
* 1784, John Brown
* 1794, Joseph Priestley
* 1804, William Burkitt
* 1806, George Faber
* 1821, Archibald Mason
* 1831, Alexander Keith
* 1851, Albert Barnes
* 1854, J C Philpot
* 1862, Edward Elliott
* 1863, Uriah Smith
* 1870, David Steele
* 1881, B W Johnson
* 1888, Grattan Guinness
I could add more. They were correct, of course - history has proved this.