Talk:Premillennialism

Chiliasm vs Premillennialism

Two questions: Is there a difference between Chiliasm and Premillennialism? Second, is the first sentence of the article really true? Isn't a/post/premillennialism more than that? Maybe replace "eschatology is the interpretation" with "eschatology is best explained by the interpretation"?

Premillennialism in Christian eschatology is the interpretation of chapter 20 of the Book of Revelation in the Bible which sees Christ's second coming as occurring ...

Liblamb 18:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems accurate to me as it is, but not very precise. Don't some forms of Postmillennialism also believe that Christ's return takes (took) place prior to the millennium? The more clear distinction should be that Premillennialism holds the millenium is still yet-to-come. --BeboGuitar 18:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

If there were propotents of Premillennialism among the early church fathers, we need some names. And a reference would not be amiss. Goldfritha 17:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that bit on Justin Martyr. I reworded it a little, as it felt a bit argumentative to me. -BeboGuitar 21:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

There should probably be a distinction drawn between Historic Premillennialism and Dispensational Premillenialism. Perhaps I'll try to find some good sources and create a section on the distinctions. --BeboGuitar 18:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

That would be nice. The citation given for the early father merely asserts that four fathers were premillenists. It would be nice to have what their works were -- even, since many of their works are on-line, specific references to the works that taught them. (And I'm not sure that a citation that speaks of four is really a citation for a "many".) Goldfritha 01:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I found a long list of names on this page [1]. The page as a whole is pretty one-sided, so I don't think I'll include the link in the article, but there are several names to look up for anyone who's interested. -BeboGuitar 16:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You don't actually define "chiliastic" - looking it up gives a circular reference to this page.

149.254.200.220 (talk) 21:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)00Mark

Bad redirect

"Chiliastic" redirects here, but nowhere on the page does it define what chilianism is or how it relates to premillennialism. Can someone help clarify? Madgenberyl (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Justin Martyr?

I have to question whether Justin Martyr can be called a premillenialist. Here are his words from Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 81:

And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place.

Justin says that Christ will rule for 1000 years and thereafter would follow the general resurrection. 1 Thessalonians 4:17, the only verse in the New Testament that mentions believers being "caught up" links this event with the general resurrection of the dead. It seems to me that if Christ's reign begins before the resurrection, that would be post-millenialism. Aardvark92 15:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, researching in response to my own question, I found this well-sourced document which goes into detail about Justin Martyr's chiliast leanings, beginning with paragraph (23). Justin's remark that "many... believe otherwise" is a clear indication that his viewpoint is in the minority. My source linked above quotes several early church fathers who held another viewpoint, and none before Justin who expressed anything that can be remotely regarded as premillennialist. Furthermore, beginning in paragraph (36) this article shows the postmillennialist influences also found in Justin's writing.

Given all this, I don't think it is accurate to say, "Many early church fathers were proponents of premillennialism." Perhaps a few can be said to have supported some aspects of premillennialism. I'm revising the article to reflect that.

Aardvark92 14:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the paragraph order to make it more clear that Justin's quote from chapter 80 refers to his chiliastic beliefs, not to his belief that the kingdom is already here. Aardvark92 16:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Condemned at Ephesus?

Anyone got a better reference that that? Like, what the document actually said? Considering that the Catholic Church does not consider amillennialism dogmatically defined (see reference in Amillennialism), I would find it interesting. Goldfritha 23:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It appears that the Council of Ephesus, which dealt mainly with Nestorianism, did not discuss premillennialism. This source shows the history of the claim that premillennialism was condemned at Ephesus. Here is a link to a primary source from the council. I'm removing the claim from this article.

Concerning the Catholic position, I removed the erroneous CCC citation to paragraph 1029 (which is discussing the status of the Church Triumphant, not millennialism) and replaced it with a citation to CCC 676, (which is pertinent). I moved it after the Lutheran citation because it's longer now. Dlw20070716 (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality

Is it me, or did Papias256 use loaded language in the rewrite? Goldfritha 23:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

What is it in particular that may be considered loaded language? I merely sought to give a well-sourced history of premillennialism since the older page seemed somewhat scattered and unreferenced. There was also a confusion in the previous article between premillennialism in general and dispensational pretribulational premillennialism. This was found in the earlier references to the Left Behind series and Hal Lindsey's The Late Great Planet Earth as distinctively premillennial. While they were premillennial, they were a specific brand of premillennialism, specifically a brand which is popular in modern Evangelical America. This brand of premillennialism was not historically or geographically popular.

Anyhow, I didn't think that I had entered anything into the article that would have been offensive to amillennialists or those of other eschatological persuasions. I included the Augustinian history which is something that Amillennialists would be proud of. Is there anything in my article in which a respected theologian has rejected? If so, then I have not read them. If you doubt my facts, then check my sources. Papias256 14:41, 24 October 2006

Solid and fair article on the premillennial issue Papias256. Appreciated the historical brevity. I'm sorry Goldfritha but the language did not seem loaded or biased. As I am familiar with the amill, premill, and postmill argument, Papias256 had several opportunities for a biased review yet didn't take them. If you have any references or support to back up your underdeveloped critique and "dispute", I would be interested in reviewing it. Waiting for a response. User:kevin_mcgill2 20:05, 25 October 2006

Goldfritha has had plenty of time to explain. None has been forthcoming, so the tag goes. Paul B 23:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

If anything here is 'loaded' it is the History section. This section should just have quotations with references (preferedly specifying either Septuagint or Masorhetic text), these summaries of the passages are interpretations and therefore POV.Fema5 (talk) 04:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Adventist Exception

I appreciate the addition of the exception of the Adventist movement in the definition. It is true that they are considered premillennial and that they do believe that Christ and the saints will reign in heaven during that time period (rather than on the earth). However, since they are certainly an exception to the tradition of chiliasm, and not the norm, I thought that it might be necessary to qualify their exception in parentheses. Perhaps a footnote would have been more helpful (so that the definition isn't too jumbled). Additionally, the grammar of the previous addition was confusing. "The belief that Christ will reign on earth and heaven[?]" Here is the actual statement from the Adventists "Fundamental Beliefs" for anyone that wants to know.

The millennium is the thousand-year reign of Christ with His saints in heaven between the first and second resurrections. During this time the wicked dead will be judged; the earth will be utterly desolate, without living human inhabitants, but occupied by Satan and his angels. At its close Christ with His saints and the Holy City will descend from heaven to earth. The unrighteous dead will then be resurrected, and with Satan and his angels will surround the city; but fire from God will consume them and cleanse the earth. The universe will thus be freed of sin and sinners forever. (Rev. 20; 1 Cor. 6:2, 3; Jer. 4:23-26; Rev. 21:1-5; Mal. 4:1; Eze. 28:18, 19.)

[2]

It is interesting to note their belief because of its theological implications for the larger movement of premillennial dispensationalists. Dispensationalists see the earthly reign as necessary to fulfill covenantal obligations regarding the Davidic Throne, the Land Promise, etc. While the adventist belief sees a different cosmic scheme happening in light of the "Great Controversy" theology.

Papias256 23:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Whoever did it, thank you for removing the SDA reference! I felt obligated to keep it because I didn't want anyone to complain, but it really bothered me because they are not premillennial in the normative traditional sense. Papias256 01:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed Two Links

I removed two external links. The Baptist site led to factually inaccurate and unsourced information. The biblicaluniversalist.com link did not seem especially relevant beyond a personal opinion. It seemed like a blog-type entry, but not necessarily by a "recognized authority." See Link [3] Papias256 01:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Reverted edits to the definition

The purpose of the first sentence or paragraph of an article is to define the subject. TempistFugit had changed the opening paragraph of this article from a definition of the theological term "Premillennialism" to something else. He left the first sentence intact, but the second sentence was an introduction to the broad interpretive schools within Christian eschatology: preterist, futurist, idealist, and historicist. TempistFugit then pointed out that these eschatological schools are applied to Christian interpretations of the Book of Revelation. The sentence following this is essentially a restatement of the first sentence of the paragraph, however with reference to Rev 20:4 (the standard pericope should be Rev 20:1-6?). He then further subdivided various views of the millennium, however the style is unattractive. For example, the equals sign is used six times and an unecessary clause is ackwardly included in parentheses. Here is an outline of TempistFugit's version of a defintion of premillennialism:

1. One sentence definition of premillennialism

2. Revelation has generated debate among students of the Bible

2.1 Broad interpretations of the Book of revelation are fourfold

2.1.1 A definition of the preterist view of Revelation

2.1.2 A definition of the futurist view of Revelation

2.1.3 A definition of the idealist view of Revelation

2.1.4 A definition of the historicist view of Revelation

2.2 An explanation that the above terms interpret the entire Book of Revelation

3. There are multiple interpretations regarding the "nature and time of the occurrence of this millennium"

3.1.1 A definition of postmillennialism

3.1.2 A definition of amillennialism

3.1.3 A definition of premillennialism

4. The Primary scriptural source for Christian premillennialism

4.1 Christian Premillennialism's theological significance for such a view

The reason that was given by TempistFugit for his edit was that he "clarified a few terms," which he did. However, he had essentially inserted material that would have better fit in the article entitled "Summary of Christian eschatological differences". Therefore I reverted the edits to the previous version. The previous version centered around a concise statment explaining the theological meaning of the term "premillennialism". In the previous version, other eschatological views are listed only for the purpose of contrasting them with premillennialism. Revelation 20 is ancillary to a definition of the doctrine of premillennialism which, in one sense, already existed prior to John's Apocalypse (in the Pseudepigraphal/Apocryphal literature as well is an Iranian apocalyptic). The definition of the term needs to be broad enough to include two things: (1) the foundational form of the doctrine that existed prior to Christianity, and (2) what Christianity distinctively did with this inherited idea.

If the older definition is unclear, then perhaps readers may suggest alternatives. The current outline for the definition is listed here:

1. One Sentence definition of premillennialism

1.1 The etymoloigcal reason for the word "premillennialism"

2. Premillennialism's distinction from other temporal views of Christ's kingdom

3. The Primary scriptural source for Christian premillennialism

3.1 Christian Premillennialism's theological significance

Papias256 04:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverted edits by 208.65.50.181

208.65.50.181 added a section at the end of the first paragraph. It read:

"This is a literalistic approach, in that premillennialists centere this belief around the Greek word 'ESNOAV', the term used soley for a spiritual resserection; because this word is used for both resserection texts, and does not imply a seperate resserection or second coming. Most have a tendancy to be pretribulationists, and believe that the entire entitiy of a person's spirit will be resserected onto the Heavenly throne, rather than the Amilmillinnialistic viewpoint of partial resserection."

The purpose of this addition is unclear. It may be an attempt to explain the amillennial theological interpretation of the Greek word ζάω in Rev 20:4 (έζησαν). However, 208.65.50.181's version of the Greek word is 'ESNOAV'. This is not using any standard Greek Transliteration and its appearance in the premillennialism article borders on vandalism. 208.65.50.181's addition has several spelling errors ("centere" for center, "resserection" for resurrection, "seperate" for separate, "entitiy" for entity, "Amilmillinnialistic" for amillennial). Furthermore, there seems to be no clear connection between this addition and the introductory matter in the premillennialism article. And finally the addition is not supported by any reliable source. Papias256 04:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

C.E. or A.D.?

70.153.34.120 altered the era abbreviations from C.E. (Common Era) to A.D. (anno Domini). I am reverting them back to C.E. The reasons for this are two-fold: (1) the Wikipedia manual of style shows no preference for A.D. or C.E., and (2) C.E. is the preferred abbreviation in The SBL Manual of Style (§8.1.2, p. 69), which is the standard reference for style in biblical studies and related fields. Papias256 04:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Non sequitur addition to lead section

User:Jonathan Tweet contributed an addition to the beginning of the article which read as follows:

Premillennialism was excluded by the Nicene Creed, which defined Christ's coming kingdom as without end. Augustine of Hippo opposed premillennialism and established amillennialsim in Western Christianity. In the Middle Ages, Christ's kingdom came to be understood not as a future event but as the Church itself.

The apparent intent of the addition was to follow the instructions in WP:LEAD regarding the lead section of an article. His note gives the reason for the edit: "lead should summarize the article, see WP:LEAD." While the lead section of this article could possibly use more of an article summarization, this addition did not supply it. The addition consists of three sentenes. The first adds new information, which needs a citation. Millennialism was non sequitur to the Nicean Creed. The purpose of the Nicean creed was not to make a statement about eschatology, but rather to make a statement about the church's belief in the ontological and economic Trinity (i.e. theology proper). One could equally charge that the church's belief in the authority of scripture was "excluded" by the Nicean Creed since it is not mentioned (though such a charge would never be made because the content of the accusation is irrelevant to the purpose of the Nicean Creed). The second and third sentences summarize part of a section that appears later in the article, namely the medieval section.

If we were to add a summary aspect to the lead section of the article, then perhaps we would base it around the main points of the article (Origin of the term, History of premillennialism, and the debate between dispensational and historic premillennialism).Papias256 19:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

html?

what is all the junk on the reference #21? someone please clean this up. 72.213.128.243 (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion moved from article

I moved this section from the main article to this discussion page since the contributor seems to be bringing up a point for discussion rather than making an actual contribution to the article itself. If agreed here, this material should be rewritten and merged back into the article.

"Criticism: Charles E. Hill effectively dismantles the claim that the Patristic era was predominantly chiliastic in his ground-breaking look at every known reference during the first three hundred years AD. In essence he shows that chiliasm crept in towards the end of the 2nd century as a reaction to another assault on Christian doctrine. I think this article needs to reflect some of the well written criticisms of Premillennialism that are well known already among scholars who write about Revelation from any of the major views. To categorically state that chiliasm was the dominant view without dealing with Charles E. Hill's key points in "Regnum Caloreum" is a failure to defend the Premillennial view with a convincing relevance." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.133.58 (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

George N.H. Peters

I removed the claim that Peters was a post-tribber since it has no citation to support it, and I have read that he was pre-trib. I know that LS Chafer was found of citing Peters in his Systematic Theology. Here is an internet quote:

"While this third "any moment" view was evidently dominant at Niagara, the years that followed brought some harsh disputes, especially by Canadian pastor, Robert Cameron and presbyterian theologian Nathaniel West, both of whom defended the post-tribulational view. Their position was opposed by men like Lutheran minister, George N. H. Peters; Congregational pastor, C. I. Scofield; presbyterian missionary spokesman, Arthur T. Pierson; and Arno C. Gaebelein, editor of Our Hope all of whom became strong champions of the pre-tribulational position. Ultimately, most post-tribs gave up the concept of imminency, and "pre-tribulationism emerged as the dominant view of the Rapture within American pre-millennialism. I think this is a quote from Peters:

"“…it is reasonable to suppose, judging from God’s past dealings, that He again will grant special deliverance to those who are devoted to Him. At this time also, the removal being designed not only to save out of tribulation, but to prepare the saints, deemed worthy of it… for joint participation in the administration of judgments upon the nations…” (II p.316)

"If he eat post toasties, let's see the proof. I have also read the claim that Peters believed the Partial Rapture theory, though I don't know if that claim be correct.(EnochBethany (talk) 16:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC))

Jack Royerton?

The mention of Jack Royerton in this article is a possible hoax or conflict of interest, perhaps both. Please see this thread at COIN. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 03:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Wrong definition, including pretribulationism?

This article defines premillennialism as the view that the church will be "raptured away to heaven". But surely those views are pretribulationist? I thought premillennialism and pretribulationism were totally independent views and so I wouldn't have thought views about the rapture and tribulation had any place in this article.

Surely all pretribulationist views should be removed from this article, since they are not part of premillennialism and they stand in stark contrast against church tradition, having been popularised in the 20th century.

If, however, to be a premillennialist intrinsically means one also must believe in the church being "raptured away to heaven" then could somebody please clarify the relationship between Premillennialism and Pretribulationism? Is one a sub-category of the other? Do they have common elements? Are they synonyms? Surely the answer, though, is none of these, and that the two views are unconnected?

Grand Dizzy (talk) 22:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

yes I agree with Grand Dizzy. the rapture does not fit for 19th century theologians I have read. Rjensen (talk) 03:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

MIllenialism vs. premillenialism

Most of this article seems to confuse the concepts of Premillenialism and Millenialism (Chiliasm). The article needs to be rewritten to correct this. Editor2020 (talk) 03:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Chiliasts

currently redirects here (seems like mistakenly) which Chiliast redirects to Millennialism, which we're distinguishing from Millenarianism despite both also being known as Chiliasm. A) Of course that should be fixed. I would've said I can easily fix the plural redirect issue but it seems like a mess now with all of the different forks that Chiliast/Chiliasm should separately be pointing towards. B) Someone should also go through the other redirect links to make sure there's no similar issues. Finally C) this article currently just takes the idea of the Chiliasts as obvious and well understood and just starts throwing the term around. That's probably an accident of movement and cleanup that's happened since those areas were added but it needs to be cleaned up some more so that people reading through this article on its own will have a rough idea who was accusing who of which heresy exactly. — LlywelynII 10:39, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Premillenialism vs. Amillenialism

The majority of this article seems to be dedicated to the definition of Amillenialism and then piggybacking the definition of Premillenialism off of that by going "it's not this". This is not very precise or clear and, as someone who came here trying to find out what premillenialism is, this methods of definition did not help in clarifying anything to me at all. The relationship between A-/Pre- and Millenialism are textually interspersed together, which I believe to be the main source of the turbidity of the article. 196.47.206.56 (talk) 07:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)