Talk:Amillennialism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Christianity / Theology (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by theology work group.
 

Aucurated?[edit]

I'm not familiar with the term inaucurated, or aucurated for that matter, and I don't see any other wiki references to it. Could someone more knowledgable than me please eludicate on this term? 198.200.181.205 23:17, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The word "inaucurated" was replaced in this article some time ago.--PeterR 5 July 2005 22:15 (UTC)

Official positions[edit]

Can anyone give references for the claim made by the anonymous contributor 198.103.167.20 that Amillennialism is "the official position of the Roman Catholic Church". I have added a link to a page that gives some support to this but suggests that the Roman Catholic Church, whilst it adopts a position which is basically amillennial, has not made an official statement on postmillennialism or amillennialism, only against premillennialism (millenarianism).--PeterR 5 July 2005 22:15 (UTC)

  • The following is from the latest "Catechism of the Catholic Church" (copied from the Vatican's official Website at http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2P.HTM)"V. The Last Judgment. 1038 The resurrection of all the dead, 'of both the just and the unjust,' will precede the Last Judgment. This will be 'the hour when all who are in the tombs will hear [the Son of man's] voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.' Then Christ will come 'in his glory, and all the angels with him .... Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left.... and they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.' ... 1040 The Last Judgment will come when Christ returns in glory. Only the Father knows the day and the hour; only he determines the moment of its coming. Then through his Son Jesus Christ he will pronounce the final word on all history."MishaPan 23:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


I think part of the confusion here is that Amilleniaism and Postmillenalism are both descendents of the same view. -- If I knew how to sig I would.

Wouldn't most other mainstream Christian groups be amillennialist? Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, Reformed, and so forth? Should they be mentioned alongside Catholicism? john k 05:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

You are right to ask. Eastern Orthodox Church is amillennialist and I added this into the article. Maybe I will make some category too.--Agapornis 15:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the statement that Amillennialism is "the official position of the Roman Catholic Church" either needs a reference or it needs to be removed. I have never heard or seen any official statement regarding the official position of the Catholic church on any eschatological position. Meng.benjamin 17:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
The statement mentioned above still needs attention. references need to be made or the statement needs to be removed. Meng.benjamin 03:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC) {{help}}

I think that since Amillennialism was taught by St. Augustine of Hippo, The Roman Catholic Church is Amillenialist as well.--Agapornis 15:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between "taught by St. Augustine of Hippo" and being defined doctrine of the Catholic Church. Certainly Amillenialism is the majority opinion of Catholics, but it hasn't been defined, so the Church itself is not Amillenialist. Goldfritha 18:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The Lutheran Confessions are explicitly amillenialist, but I would doubt the Reformed should be considered Amillenialist because the bulk of the debate over pre-,post-millenialism has taken place among them.--FidesetRatio 16:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Right. The Reformed variously hold to amill, postmill, and historic premill, and all are allowed by, e.g., the Westminster Confession. A few dispensationalesque Calvinists like John MacArthur hold to other varieties of premill, but they are certainly the exception. --Flex (talk|contribs) 15:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Rapture[edit]

Disbelief in the Rapture is not an identifying trait because, historically, belief in the Rapture has not been an identifying trait of premillennialism. Goldfritha 01:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I dropped that bit and reapplied some of the other changes. If you have any complaints, let's talk it out here. --Flex (talk|contribs) 20:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
You are redundantly putting information in the lede that is already in the article and is not significiant enough to belong there. Goldfritha 01:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Please elaborate. --Flex (talk|contribs) 13:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Idealism?[edit]

It seems that the identification of Amillennialism with Idealism is inaccurate. Whereas Idealists would interpret all of the prophesies in the Apocalypse of St. John as being symbolic--a great mythological and instructive drama, not meant to be taken literally--Amillennialists believe in the actual litteral reality of the prophesies (i.e., there will be an actual person known as the "Beast"/Antichrist), but disagree with Millennialists about how those prophesies will be fulfilled in history (the Kingdom of Heaven is among us now; not a future, temporary, earthly kingdom).MishaPan 13:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source (preferably a well-known amiller) who makes this case? BTW, many amillers are also partial preterists who believe many of the events depicted in the Revelation are already fulfilled (e.g., Nero was the antichrist in view). --Flex (talk|contribs) 14:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I can really only speak from the point of view of traditional Eastern Orthodox theology, which is very definitely not preterist. The best source in English that I can find right now is Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky (Tr. Hieromonk Seraphim Rose, Saint Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, Platina, CA, 1984). This book is used as a textbook in at least one major Orthodox Seminary in America (Holy Trinity Seminary, Jordanville, NY). Chapter 10 is devoted to Christian Eschatology. Father Michael states concerning the antichrist: "[I]n a particular sense, "Antichrist" signifies a definite person--the adversary of Christ who is to appear before the end of the world." (p.336). He then goes on to quote II Thes. 2:3-11 as pertaining to the qualities and actions of this particular individual who is to come. While acknowledging that some early Christian teachers (Papias of Hieropolis, St. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus) did espouse millennialist ideas (chiliasm), the consensus of the Holy Fathers is that there will be no temporary Kingdom of Christ (St. Dionysios of Alexandria, St. Basil the Great, St. Gregory the Theologian, St. Epiphanios, and St. Jerome--none of whom can be classified as preterists, or even partial preterists). Father Michael says, "If it was at one time possible to express chiliastic ideas as private opinions, this was only until the Ecumenical Church expressed its judgment about this. But when the Second Ecumenical Council (381), in condemning all the errors of Apollinarius, condemned also his teaching of the thousand-year reign of Christ and introduced into the very Symbol of the Faith [i.e., the Nicene Creed] the words concerning Christ: And His Kingdom will have no end--it became no longer permissible at all for an Orthodox Christian to hold these opinions." (p. 344. Emphasis in the original). St. Augustine, also, in The City of God, XX, 7-9, combats chiliastic teachings.MishaPan 06:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the current article definitely has a Protestant feel to it. Feel free to generalize it and incorporate EO views. (BTW, if you have any EO input that you could share over at Christianity and alcohol, I'd appreciate that, too!) --Flex (talk|contribs) 20:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Over-spiritualization[edit]

Regarding the unsourced allegation that literalists accuse amillennialists of over-spiritualizing the Bible, I could find only this chart, which lists as one of the dangers of amill (and postmill) theology as "Over-spiritualize O.T.", while a danger of dispensational premill is given as "over-spiritualize N.T." I've also read a book by Gary DeMar, which adopts an amillennial theology from a literalist perspective. If no one can find a source for the allegation that literalists are opposed to amillennialism, I'm going to remove it. Aardvark92 23:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

How about this as an example. A quote:
While the more conservative amillennialists major on spiritualizing prophecy, and trying to take other scriptures literally, they end up destroying the faith of countless multitudes of people. Amillennialism is the breeding ground for modernism, just like the swamps are the breeding ground for frogs. When you teach preachers how to spiritualize and explain away the prophecies of God’s Word, don’t be surprised when they spiritualize the virgin birth, the resurrection of Christ, and other fundamental truths of the Word of God. Amillennialism and postmillennialism should take a bow, because they are largely responsible for the horrible wave of modernism now flooding the world.
If you can’t take the thousand year reign of Christ here on this earth literally, then what part of Revelation 20 can we take literally? Is Christ literal, or is He like the thousand years? Is the devil literal, or is he also just like the thousand years? No wonder that some do not believe in the judgment and in hell, they are just following and further developing the rules of interpretation laid down by amillennialists and postmillennialist.
--Flex (talk|contribs) 00:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Your comments are inappropriate for a talk page. Goldfritha 01:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Huh? Who? Did I miss something? I wasn't endorsing the content of the quote; it was just from a link on the first page of my googling to illustrate that this POV is real. Moreover, talk pages are for discussing things. Only personal attacks and the like are verboten here. --Flex (talk|contribs) 02:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'll grant that's certainly an example of a literalist accusing amillennialists of overspiritualizing. At the other end of the spectrum is literalist Gary DeMar's book End Times Fiction, which claims the premillennialists are the ones who are overspiritualizing the Bible. I guess what I'm objecting to is the blanket statement, "Those who take a strictly literalistic view accuse amillennialists of over-spiritualizing parts of the Bible," which I don't think is true of all literalists. Aardvark92 06:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read that book, but I do know that DeMar is a postmiller, not an amiller (not that the two are as different as pre and post). Am I right in guessing that DeMar says premill literalists don't really take the text literally because Jesus was supposed to return before the end of the present generation (which they deny), because a literal reading of revelation would be about locusts and men on horses (not helicopters or oil or china), and/or because a truly literal reading takes into account the genre of the text in question? In any case, it seems to me that "Those who take a strictly literalistic view" here is really intended as a synonym for premillers who often claim that they are the only ones reading things literally. --Flex (talk|contribs) 14:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
If literalist in this article means premill, then perhaps the article should say premill. (BTW: Your guesses are correct about DeMar's claims. He says all those things.) Aardvark92 17:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I note that this talk is pretty old now...but that the section is still without a single reference. It should therefore be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Three6t (talkcontribs) 08:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Moderate Amillenialism Vs. Strong Amillenialism[edit]

In the Catholic Church there is a feast day called Christ the King. Some dissidents who claim they are amillenialists at one point in the 20th century criticized the Feast day because they felt that having Christ as King of the Church and the World was too political and millenial. The conservative position, while remaining firmly amillenialist, sees nothing wrong with a kingly social reign, as it is noted in the letter Quas Primas. The article should maybe explore the various currents of amillenial thought instead of entirely framing the debate on millenialists vs. amillenialists, which is likely not subtle enough. ADM (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

B.B. Warfield[edit]

Um, wasn't B.B. Warfield a postmillenialist? That's what I've read everywhere it mentions his views... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.212.69 (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church vs. Catholic Church[edit]

Since this article is dealing with the different branches of the Christian church, we should keep the "Roman Catholic Church" designation, rather than the modern shorthand "Catholic Church". The "Catholic Church", historically, can be used to designate the entire Christian tradition, with "Roman Catholic Church" designating the specific tradition that is different from the Eastern Orthodox and Protestant branches.--Lyonscc (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes please keep it Roman Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Christians also are know as Eastern Orthodox Catholic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.45.152 (talk) 01:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Modern Times[edit]

Should the final paragraph describing a viewpoint of E Michael Jones be here at all? Putting aside whether he is a credible source, a view that the millennium (The Rule of Christ) ran from 410 to 1410 and was therefore a literal time period puts this view outside of amillennialism. You might argue that this paragraph would add to the article on post-millennialism but it does nothing here. Unless anyone has any objections, I will remove it. Three6t (talk) 09:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Dionysius of Alexandria[edit]

The given citation does not prove "he was amillennial", but that in fact he was opposed to Cerinthus who held this teaching. I will remove him from the article if I do not receive a reply within a few days. The Cake 2 (talk) 03:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

On August 8, I removed the mention of Dionysius altogether. User:Lyonscc reverted that change on August 11. Today I initially reverted his change. I then discovered that the information is in fact correct. I therefore returned the sentence about Dionysius, with a correction to the referenced chapter. Sorry for the confusion! The Cake 2 (talk) 08:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)