Talk:Historicism (Christianity)/Archive 1

Not just Adventist related

Historicism was the position of many Protestant divines prior to the 1830s, and even to some after that. The article is not just related to Seventh-day Adventism. DFH 21:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful additions DFH. I added the Seventh-day Adventist related comments, as this is my area of knowledge, but am well aware that many Protestants including many/most(?) of the Reformers supported historicism. -Colin MacLaurin 05:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes - most of the Reformers, as the following quote illustrates:[1]

"This was the principle theory which attracted the attention of the most orthodox and enlightened expositors until the earliest part of this century. It looks upon prophecy as an actual anticipation of veritable history. It regards each seal as successor to the preceding, in chronological order; each trumpet and each vial in the same way; and, objecting to the previous theory, maintains that the septenary of trumpets are subsequent to the septenary of seals, and the septenary of vials subsequent to the septenary of trumpets. The exclusive church scheme is discarded, and the Apocalypse is viewed as setting forth, in regular progression and detail, the chief secular and ecclesiastical events of the existing dispensation. An anti-Papal solution is given to the symbols and predictions respecting the "Beast." It was the theory of the Waldenses, Wickliffites, and Hussites; and the great body of the Reformers in the 16th century-German, Swiss, French, English, generally received it. It has been the view of the vast majority of Scottish presbyterians. It was also the view of many prominent American divines, from Edwards to the 19th century Princeton theologians-the Alexanders, the Hodges, Miller, etc. It is preeminently the theory of the Reformation, and therefore has been violently opposed by Roman Catholics, prelatists, rationalising expositors and other foes of reformational principles."-L'Avenir

DFH 17:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as this page has remained a stub for a long time, I've bulked it up a little with some SDA content. There's just a brief sketch of traditional SDA interpretations of Dan and Rev. Some non-SDA historicist views would be appreciated too (though I suspect Adventism is probably the main proponent of the historicist school these days...) Tonicthebrown 14:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

SDA Bible Commentary

I've included references to the SDA Bible commentary, based on notes which I took several years ago when I had access to the commentary through my old church library. However, I presently do not have access to the commentary any longer, so am unable to provide exact details (edition, page numbers, etc.). Help here would be appreciated! Tonicthebrown 04:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

External links - not SPAM

I have added some more links today, which are intended for providing the reader with further information. They are not linkspam - I have no connection with any of the sites. DFH 22:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Interpretations unique to Historicism

The article wrongly implied that the identification of the Roman Catholic Church/papacy as the man of sin/beast/whore is unique to Historicism. I have corrected this. --Taiwan boi 06:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Tar Brush

"Historicism" is "a school of interpretation" as the article fairly points out, and it is a doctrine as the article indicates by comparing it on equal footing with other doctrines.: "Historicism stands in contrast to Preterism, Futurism and Idealism."

The term "historicist" is preceeded historically by the day-year understanding of prophecy. So the article statement: "The day-year principle is unique to historicism." is unsupportable.

That a continuous-historic view of prophecy is required for the day-year "language" is supportable. That "historicists" are one group that understand prophecy through the continuous-historic framework is also supportable. (This framework is the traditional view of most Christians and Jews for Old Testament prophecy. Simply put, that prophecy is fulfilled steadily as the era it is written about unfolds.)

Perhaps it would have been better put by something like "The school of Historicism is one group that uses the day-year principle in exegesis." This way other folks that hold a day-year understanding of prophecy aren't tarred with the same brush as the Catholic bashers that cause division in the Body of Christ.RJEdit 19:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Early Church Fathers

Don't put "early church fathers" in the section on pre-Reformation Historicism. The Church fathers didn't start teaching Historicism until about the time of the Council of Nicea. Before that, they were still teaching Immediacy, i.e. "the doctrine of iminence," i.e. that Jesus could come at any time because all the signs were fulfilled. Historicism didn't start until the scholars started "stretching" the story to make it fit their times.

Ike Eickman (talk) 07:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Historicism is the view that prophecy occupies the time between the earliest prophecies given, and the return of Christ. That's what the ECFs believed and their interpretation of Daniel 2 is typical Historicism. This is not incompatible with Immediacy. If you want a different view represented, you'll have to find WP:RS which make it; you can't keep just putting your own ideas into the article. Regardless, my edit was properly referenced and relevant, and should therefore not be moved or deleted.--Taiwan boi (talk) 07:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

You just added an unreferenced edit. Please understand that you can't simply add your own opinion to the article. Every statement must be made by a WP:RS, not by you.--Taiwan boi (talk) 07:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for you to explain why you're not following Wiki policy.--Taiwan boi (talk) 08:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I have removed your "references" since, as I expected, they were not WP:RS but WP:OR. You cannot use the New Testament as as reference to substantiate your interpretation of the New Testament. Please read WP:OR.--Taiwan boi (talk) 08:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Inadequate references

Wiki policy insists that references be verifiable. The following references are inadequate.

• Theology Adrift: The Early Church Fathers and Their Views of Eschatology by Matthew Allen
• Victoria Balabanski, Eschatology in the Making: Mark, Matthew and the Didache. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Hbk. ISBN: 0521591376
• F.F. Bruce, "Eschatology in the Apostolic Fathers," D. Nieman & M. Schatkin, eds

Where are the page numbers? These sources are being misrepresented:

• Leroy Edwin Froom, The Prophetic Faith Of Our Fathers, volume II (1948) pages 267-279
• Francis Nigel Lee, 'The Non-Preterist Historicism of John Calvin and the Westminster Standards' (2000)

Neither of these references say that Luther and Calvin took "A new Historicist approach unique to the Reformation".

This reference is WP:OR

• http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/jerome_daniel_02_text.htm

This reference does not say that the Orthodox have their own version of Historicism; it does not say anything about Historicism at all.

• Gheorghe Petraru, Phd,http://www.ejst.tuiasi.ro/Files/05/67-77Petraru.pdf

Your two tables still have absolutely no supporting references whatsoever.--Taiwan boi (talk) 02:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's another:

Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and the Protestant Reformers all developed their own versions of historicist eschatology over time.

Where does the Oxford Handbook of Eschatology say that Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and the Protestant Reformers all developed their own versions of Historicist eschatology over time? Direct quotations are required please. I suspect that the book does not actually say this at all. I suspect that it simply has different sections for the different eschatological views of these groups, but does not identify them all as "Historicist".--Taiwan boi (talk) 17:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

More inadequate referencing:

After many of the prophetic events prophesied of by Jesus Christ came to pass without any Second Coming--such as the destruction of the Second Temple of Jerusalem and the Simon bar Kochba Revolt resulting in the expulsion of the Jews from the Temple Mount--Christian theologians began to speculate that prophecy is fulfilled over a longer period of time than first thought.

None of these sources say what is attributed to them.

• 1) The article from the Greek Orthodox site is not a WP:RS, and it says "The early Church lived in expectation of the "day of the Lord," the day of His coming again. The Church later realized that its time is known but to God; still, some signs of Christ's second coming were expected", which is not what you claimed.
• 2) The article 'Theology Adrift' doesn't say anything like what you claimed, its focus is a contrast between the literal and allegorical interpretations of eschatology.
• 3) The Carroll citation is unverifiable, not least because you haven't provided a single page reference. In fact, Carroll says the opposite of what you claim, "In my judgment, it is a mistake to insist that early Christian expectations were consistently one way or another, or that Christianity started out eschatologically charged only to diminish in hope and expectation over time. Instead, both strands have always been present, and both can be seen in second-and third-century Christian writings as well" (p. 151).--Taiwan boi (talk) 06:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Complete Coverage

Finished roughing in a complete coverage of Historicist though through the Church Age.

1) End of Immediacy (or "imminence"). 2) 4th Century to East-West Schism, with explanation of some differences. 3) Schism to Reformation. 4) Post-Reformation developments.

There is one section that didn't even make sense in the original article left over. Someone feel free to figure out where it fits in.

Haven't added references yet. Spent the last three days collecting them, just haven't done them yet.

Ike Eickman (talk) 18:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Added references. Let 'er rip.

Ike Eickman (talk) 07:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

So that's it? Those are you references? You're not going to address the issues already identified with your references?--Taiwan boi (talk) 11:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I fully annotated the sections I edited. The sections that don't have references are the sections that were already there before I began editing, which I simply moved and reordered according to chronology.

Moreover, the section on post-Reformation developments wasn't even mine. I just wrote an outline, then found out that someone else had already done an edit; but it was so full of syntax errors that most of it was hidden, so I fixed the syntax errors, and the hidden parts showed up. (I'm not kidding.) And those aren't my citations in that section, either--they were already there.

It could still use some more citations on the differences between Catholic and Orthodox historicist thought (which is why I included the note saying the list was no all inclusive), but there is enough there to get the ball rolling.

Ike Eickman (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

You haven't addressed any of the citation issues I've already pointed out. You've also added new citations which aren't supported by the references you use.--Taiwan boi (talk) 02:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

???

What citations have you pointed out?

I just finished editing the thing all over again. I didn't repost any of what I wrote before. And I added many new citations, and some citations which I used before, like the "Theology Adrift" book, which is all about the transition from imminence to historicism, no "page numbers" required.

For whatever reasons, you just can't stand that the article now actually covers the entire corpus of historicist thought, warts and all.

What's up with that?

Oh, and it's a good thing God has my back: I saw your new dispute on the credibility of sources page.

Noticed you didn't tag the "Book of Daniel" page, or notify me of any dispute.

That's OK--I was notified anyway.

Make sure and check the response.

Ike Eickman (talk) 04:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Inadequate references; please address. You are completely wrong to say that I "can't stand that the article now actually covers the entire corpus of historicist thought". Not only does it not do this yet, it would require far more WP:RS citations to do so than the current article has. I'm in a position to do that, because I own over 900 Historicist works. You have not even read the reference I provided which demonstrated that imminence was not replaced by Historicism; imminence remained in Historicism:

"The early church fathers largely expected the church to be suffering and persecuted when the Lord returns. However, they also believed in the imminent return of Christ, which is a central feature of pretribulational thought.", LaHaye & Hindson (eds.), "The Popular Encyclopedia of Bible Prophecy: Over 140 Topics from the World's Foremost Prophecy Experts", p. 316 (2004).

I'm glad you saw that your sources were rejected on the WP:RS noticeboard. I see that you edited the archived discussion, which is explicitly forbidden. You are still not following Wiki policy.--Taiwan boi (talk) 05:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is a typical theological confusion of terms. Yes, there are still those who teach a "doctrine of imminence" (despite the evidence to the contrary) which is why I use the term "immediacy" in my own writings--to distinguish between early Christian thought and linear historicist thought.

And as the sources point out (like the theology adrift book) the Christians who saw the temple destroyed, and who endured the persecutions of first the Jews, and then the Romans, thought that the events were coming to pass that would result in the immediate return of Christ.

It was over time that interpretations were enlongated and historicism emerged.

Historicism was NOT taught in the first two centuries of the church--they didn't have a reason to teach such a thing because the history (as they interpreted it) was still coming to pass. Even the New Testament authors kept referring to "these last days" when they were obviously not.

Everyone else seems to know this but you.

However, you did key in on your major malfunction: "I own over 900 historicist works," proving your sectarian bias.

Gee, how many other works do you own? How many other positions do you examine and consider? I examine them all. And I know how and when the wheels came off the bus. But that's not something I discuss in my edits.

You want to write an "others say" annotation, be my guest. I'm aware of what certain secatarians say.

But this article isn't about "Orthodox" or "Catholic" or "Protestant" historicist thought--it's about ALL historicist thought, and you're sectarian position is but one.

I think people are starting to get what's going on here--sectarian bias.

I have no such bias because I see the truth (and the lack of it) in everything.

Ike Eickman (talk) 06:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Do not remove ANYTHING from this article without tagging it with a dispute marker, or calling for a peer review of some type.

I didn't remove anything; I presented the broad view.

Unless you can make a specific argument NOT subject to your personal opinions and narrow sectarian views, leave it alone.

Ike Eickman (talk) 06:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Ike

Continuing to make false accusations against me doesn't address your misrepresentation of sources, and lack of referencing. The fact that I own over 900 Historicist works (by a complete range of different sects, not one; no sectarian bias here), is one of the reasons why I know more about the subject and the development of Historicist interpretation than you do. I also own several hundred Futurist, Preterist, and Idealist works. I also own numerous scholarly works on prophecy from a disinterested third party perspective. I have already raised the issues of your inadequate references here, and on the WP:RS noticeboard. You have had days to resolve these issues, yet you won't even respond to what I write. The earliest view was that prophecy extended to the end of the age. The only development which resulted from the advancing passage of time was the estimate as to when the end of the age would be. That is precisely why imminence remained prominent in Historicist teaching. You had claimed that imminence was replaced by Historicism, which is nonsense.--Taiwan boi (talk) 06:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, bull.

I just did this stuff yesterday and last night.

And the earliest view by the early Christians was that they were IN the "End of the Age." They saw no other possibility. (But they would have if they had paid attention to what Matthew, Luke, and John wrote, and how Jesus prophesied, but that's an issue outside of the scope of Wikipedia...for now.)

And I SAID that there was a continuing "doctrine of imminence," which is why I don't USE the term "imminence," but "immediacy," i.e. they thought Jesus was IMMEDIATELY coming.

And as for "responding" to your crap, you aren't even reading what I've written in your zeal to protect your sectarian position from all comers.

(And you stil haven't asked about a single reference since I edited the article lest you have to explain why non-historicist sources aren't valid.)

Ike Eickman (talk) 07:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes I have asked about references since you edited the article (here). Sure the apostles believed they were living in the end of the age. So did Irenaeus over 100 yeras later. So did Victorinus in 300. So did Jerome over 100 years later again. This view never died out. Your differentiation between "imminence" and "immediacy" is your own idiosyncratic interpretation. You need to find a WP:RS which says this, otherwise you just have WP:OR.--Taiwan boi (talk) 07:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that just because the apostles believed that Jesus was going to return in their day does not mean that they understood the prophecies correctly. Jesus told them that prophecies were given so the "when they happened" they would then understand the prophecies. In other words, someone may think they know what the prophecies mean before they are fulfilled, but until they have been fulfilled to the very letter they would not have a true understanding. It is only when a prophecy has become fulfilled that believers will be able to say, "look, the fulfillment of prophecy." _8een4Tfor (talk) 13:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this, but it needs to be pointed out that whether or not they were correct is irrelevant. This is an encyclopedia article, not a theology paper, so discussion of the accuracy of their beliefs has no place here (Eickman needs to understand this too).--Taiwan boi (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

1) Where is this statement that "Jesus told them [the apostles] prophecies were given so that 'when they happened' they would understand the prophecies?"

2) Luke, Matthew, and John seemed to "understand prophecies correctly"--they recorded Jesus prophesying multiplistically and three-dimensionally, a concept that completely disappeared from early Christian interpretation as it broke down along sectarian lines.

3) This hypothesis of yours is rediculously wrong: Jesus and the boys gave prophecy to prepare the saints to endure, then as now. Of course, prophecies are to be understood.

The same thing applies to the 2nd Century BC Jews who believed that Antiochus was the fulfillment of some of Daniels prophecies. Just because they thought so does not mean that they were right. There are far too many blank spots in the application of Antiochus to Daniel's prophecies for him to be the true fulfillment. Every phrase and every word of the prophecies must be precisely fulfilled by the true fulfiller of the prophecy. Generalization and glossing over means falsehood. _8een4Tfor (talk) 13:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You need to go back and look at how Jesus and the prophets prophesied (which is what my new book is about) before you start making determinations about how prophecy works, and whether or not Antiochus Epiphanes fits into a that multiplistic framework.

But you're right about one thing: "Generalization" and "glossing over" does mean "falsehood"...and the Historicists, Dispensationalists, Idealists, and Preterists have all been doing it for two millennia.

Ike Eickman (talk) 15:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that neither of you are discussing the article, you're involved in a theological dispute. This is not the place for that.--Taiwan boi (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed the second paragraph is wrong.

Catholic Historicism was challenged in the 16th century by Futurism and Preterism.

Protestant Historicism was challenged later by Dispensationalism (from Futurism) and Idealism (from Fairbairn, in opposition to the literalism of the Plymouth Brethren).

Actually, the paragraph doesn't even need to be there, as these things are discussed in their own section.

Likewise, the Adventist statement doesn't need to be there, either, since that is discussed in its own section, too.

Ike Eickman (talk) 07:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

What you write here is very confused. By the 16th century there was no such thing as "Catholic Historicism". Protestant Historicism was challenged by Futurism and Preterism from the 16th century onwards. Dispensationalism was just a further Futurist challenge, and Idealism was a fringe allegorical view which resulted from people not knowing what to make of Revelation and just throwing it in the "too hard" basket. Where are your sources?--Taiwan boi (talk) 07:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course there was "Catholic Historicism," as in Catholic historicist thought, a concept you keep trying to deny to stump for your sectarian position.

Furthermore, Futurism and Preterism came out of the Catholic camp in some priest's and theologian's efforts to thwart Protestant historicism. Catholicism tolerates these other positions, but its official position is still historicism.

Dispensationalism was NOT "just a further Futurist challenge." It derived from a revival of Catholic futurism in the 19th Century.

But thanks; you're demonstrating how much you don't know about the development of prophetic interpretations to begin with.

Ike Eickman (talk) 15:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources please for "Catholic Historicism" during the Reformation, and that the official Catholic position is "still historicism". Sources, WP:RS. That's what you need. Of course Futuruism and Preterism came out of the Catholic camp in an attempt to thwart Protestant Historicism. I already added references explaining this. Yes, Dispensationalism was just another Futurist challenge; all 19th century Futurist challenges descended from the original Catholic Futurism. Dispensationalism was not unique in this.--Taiwan boi (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Do not remove any statements from the article without calling for a peer review of the statement, not the sources--more sources can be added. (But, of course, you don't want any sort of peer review, knowing that the statements are essentially correct, and a peer review would put a stop to your meddling.)

Ike Eickman (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I would be delighted to call for peer review. Shall we start with 3PO, or would you like to go straight to peer review or an AfD? I'm happy with any of these. Remember that you still have to justify your sources. The WP:RS noticeboard wasn't impressed with two of them.--Taiwan boi (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

LOL

Sources are secondary to the facts, and there are THOUSANDS of sources discussing the development of eschatological thought, or the differences between Catholic and Orthodox eschatology.

Why you insist on boxing with the wind is beyond me.

Ike Eickman (talk) 04:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You're not actually addressing what I wrote. As you've been told previously by several editors, statements on Wikipedia must be supported by WP:RS. If you can't find WP:RS to support the statements you want included, then they can't be included. The issue under dispute here is not the development of eschatological thought, or the differences between Catholic and Orthodox eschatology. The issue is you including statements without references, citing unverifiable references, and misrepresenting references. You have yet to provide any evidence for post-Reformation "Catholic Historicism" and "Orthodox Historicism", and that the official Catholic position is "still historicism". Where are your WP:RS supporting these points?--Taiwan boi (talk) 05:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

So are you going to address this? Still want to go to peer review? I've been very patient so far.--Taiwan boi (talk) 01:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Good edits from 8een4Tfor, but a little too detailed for a general discussion of the development of Historicist thought. Taiwan Boi is still trying to delete actually history through technicalities.

And that's the point: If one gets the right format and historical statements up, others can help refine them. The sectarians attempt to knock down the discussion before it can happen.

Ike Eickman (talk) 19:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

//Zulatry (talk) 20:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This isn't really an encyclopedia article. It's a list of quotes (not all of which are clearly related to the professed authors of the views expressed). Where is the discussion of the origin of the idea, of its development and the influences on it, or of the different perspectives on it? Wouldn't it be better deleted until something better can be done? Diomedea Exulans (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Diomedea, if you think a quote is not properly referenced by wikipedia policy you may use the "Citation needed" tag next to that statement, or mention it here. Generally blanking or deleted an entire article is against wikipedia policy, if you think this article should be deleted you can tag it for speedy deletion and wikipedia admins will make the final decision. Regarding quotations, in order to prove that certain mainstream viewpoints are in agreement with a position such as this, often a cited quotation from that church or person is necessary. Regarding different perspectives, this article is about the historicism perspective only, and additional contradictory viewpoints may be better expressed in more generic wikipedia articles. If you are unsure on how to tag a certain portion of a wikipedia article I would be more than happy to point to the appropriate wikipedia page if I know it. Hope that helps! Willfults (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

This "article" reads like it was ripped, more or less, directly from an anti-Catholic tract, designed to present such points of view as simple fact, with no counter-view, or even the pretense that discussion might be required. This ought to be deleted, or drastically altered.

supersoulty (talk) 05:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It's another example of Seventh Day Adventist POV. Their editors dominate the articles on Bible prophecy. It needs a massive cleanup.--Taiwan boi (talk) 06:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

lead should summarize the topic, see WP:LEAD. Also spark interest in the topic.

The lead dances around the subject without ever describing historicism. What, exactly, do historicists believe? The article is evasive, as if someone is trying to muffle the content.

For example, Revelation clearly identifies Rome as the seven-headed beast. This connection to Rome as the enemy of the Church goes back to apostolic times (Nero and later), and it figures into historicism, especially as it has been expressed for the last 500 years. Leadwind (talk) 05:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. There's a lot I could do with this article if I didn't think my edits would be reverted by Eickmann.--Taiwan boi (talk) 06:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I decided to be bold.--Taiwan boi (talk) 06:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. John never says the beast is Rome--that's a POV interpretation. There are those I've run into who say the "beast" is Jerusalem (typically anti-Semites). They also typically say that the "seven heads" are the heads of the Sanhedrin. (I refuse to write in that interpretation myself.)

There are those who say that John was strictly referring to Rome past (pre-Reformation) and then came the post-Reformation interpretation.

Seems we still have those who don't know that Protestant Historicism isn't the only "Historicist" interpretation out there. In fact, the original lasted for about 1,200 years before the Protestants came along.

(But, of course, certain sectarians don't want folks to know that.)

Ike Eickman (talk) 04:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

What you say is completely untrue. It is the majority scholarly opinion that John identifies the beast as Rome, using the very clear term "city on seven hills", which was used from the 1st century BCE to the 2nd century CE as a reference to Rome. This term is found in Latin and Greek poets, rhetoricians, and historians (Cicero, Virgil, Horace, Propertius, Maximus, Ovid, Martial, etc), as well as Jewish eschatological commentary (the Jewish Sibylline Oracles). It is a well recognized term for Rome, and there is no scholarly dispute about this (Kuhn 1985, Talbert 1994, Braund 1996, Carey 1999, Ushakov 2007, Bollacasa 2009, Alcock 2006, Hawes 2009, etc), nor is there anything remotely sectarian about it. This was also the interpretation of the earliest Chrstian commentaries, and after the Reformation it was the interpretation even of the Preterist commentary by Bossuet, and the Futurist commentary by Bellarmine, not to mention Lacunza. Furthermore, there is no one here who doesn't know that "Protestant Historicism isn't the only "Historicist" interpretation out there", or that "the original lasted for about 1,200 years before the Protestants came along". That information is already in the article, and I put it there.--Taiwan boi (talk) 06:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

"Majority" and "minority" are fairly irrelevant in an encyclopedic reference.

I agree that the reference is to Rome; but that's a matter of interpretation, and not everyone agrees with that interpretation. Like I said, I've argued with plenty of characters (usually Supremacists) who say its Jerusalem, not Rome. Come to think of it, I've had Catholics who have argued that the reference is to Jerusalem, not Rome (usually while trying to deflect Protestant Historicist criticisms). I've also had characters who argued that it refers to a literal restored "Babylon" in Iraq. Then again, I've had characters who argued that it refers to the United States, believing that the US picked up where the Greeks and Romans left off, and the US is the "beast."

Sorry, one can say "probably," or one can say "others," but one can't say "clearly" if John didn't specifically say "Rome."

John refers to "Babylon," too--does that mean John was literally referring to Babylon? In fact, was John ever prophesying literally at all anywhere in Revelation? Was he ever talking about the past? or the present? or the future? All these things are interpretive, and once you cross that line, things quickly get complicated: Once you say "the majority thinks," then you have to start accounting for what the minority thinks, which opens up a whole new can of worms.

Best to leave it generic.

Ike Eickman (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong. Majority opinion is what this encyclopedia insists on. See WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. The majority of scholarly commentators understand John to be referring to Rome, and that is what the article should say; "The majority of scholarly commentaries understand John to be referring to Rome". The same goes for "Babylon". The rest of your questions are completely irrelevant.--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

First sectarian-driven blatantly false statement: "Majority opinion is what this encyclopedia insists on," then refers to other opinions as "fringe," meaning any group not in the mainstream, i.e. Unitarians, Mormons, JWs, minority Catholic opinions (like those of the Jesuits), etc, etc.

Second sectarian-driven blatantly false statement: "The majoriy of scholarly commentators understand John to be referring to Rome." "Scholarly opinions" are like genitals--everyone has them, but it's rarely a good idea to discuss them in public. That's why every sect has their own "scholars."

Ike Eickman (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Your statements here are completely untrue. You are in breach of Wiki policy. Please read WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE.--Taiwan boi (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Darby & Scofield

The article could use a section on how Historicism was replaced by Futurism and another section on Preterism, although a lesser held view. Clearly, Darby and Scofield should be in the history. Darby was one of the first prominant theologians in the English speaking world to take the Futurist view. (1. Studies on the Book of Daniel, by John Nelson Darby 3rd edition, 1864. See pgs. 75-82 for the 70th week of Daniel, and the footnote on pg. 119 for a reference to the pre-tribulation rapture & 2. Notes on the Apocalypse, by John Nelson Darby. See page 53 for note on the 70th week of Daniel 9). It is said Darby came to America and this influenced Scofield who then published the Scofield Reference Bible.75.120.185.48 (talk) 21:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

British-Israel Church

At least some of the BIC are Historicists. Pastor Alan Campbell for instance. Also Reformation Online. And Bible or Traditions. Interesting that Bible or Traditions has made for Youtube videos telling how the four horsemen rode when 1/3 of the Roman Empire fell in the 5th century, and the 5th and 6th trumpets blew in the 7th & 15th centuries when Islam formed and took another 1/3 of the Roman Empire in the east.75.120.185.48 (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Historicist Believe

Nobody doubts the RCC at some point had a position on the books of Revelation and Daniel as the opening paragraphs of this Wikipedia page attempts to demonstrate. The question is, was it correct or was it a false eschatology? Just because a theologian writes on Revelation does not make it Historicism. Christian Historicism would continue the OT theme the Jews held about the coming Messiah, and other fulfilled prohecies, especially such as found in the book of Daniel about the four empires of chapter 2, and the 70 weeks until the Messiah in chapter 9. The fourth empire of Daniel ch 2 & 7 being the Roman empire which rules until the second coming is picked up in Revelation.

Although there are minor details of disagreement on symbolic interpretation Historicist generally agree the four horsemen of Revelation 6 are four periods covering the going forth of the Gospel and God's people (church) after the giving of the prophecies of Revelation. The white horse was riden by Jesus who went forth conquering with the true Gospel. The red horse began with Nero and the persecutions. The black horse began with Constantine and corrupting of the Gospel. While the pale horse began with the papacy in 538 covering the middle ages. This is what is found with several Historicists who find prophecy fulfilled in history, then gain insight or wisdom as to where we are in prophetic history and where the next event is to take place. Uriah Smith [1], Matthew Henry [2], William Miller [3], SDA [4]. The same continue that the trumpets of Rev 9 blew on the Roman Empire in the east at the rise of Islam (locusts), specifically the 5th & 6th trumpets.

Some of the British-Isralites further point out that all prophecy takes place on the Roman "earth" empire. And that the first few vials (1st through 5th) of Revelation 16 poured on the papacy beginning at the French Revolution until the fall of the papal states (1789-1870). Although the empire fell the Roman Church remains. Alan Campbell, Bible or Traditions [1]. 6th vial looks like the east-west schizm is healed united by the symbolic drying of the Euphrates.75.120.185.48 (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like most of the above was included under the SDA section except for the vials of Rev.16 which SDA place future.72.161.229.229 (talk) 05:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

One True Church

Re the lead, historicism is not about a denomination being the true church as it looks like the lead implies... especially in relation to a claimant's vision of "the true church"." If we keep in mind that before Futurism there was no term "historicism". And after the Reformation there were many denominations who all held similar historicist views. Still, i would add historicism being the true understanding of the Bible is the "faith of Jesus" (Rev.14:12) which his people (church) have. While there are some denominations (or their Church) who lay claim to being his people there have been many down through history that were not part of any of these churches and were bible believers or historicists.72.161.229.229 (talk) 05:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Eschatology-oriented edits

A lot of the content of all these eschatology pages was getting duplicated, because each of the views had to be heard on each of the pages. I've moved much of the interpretations to their respective view pages (for example, taken the Futurist view of the Book of Revelation and put it on the Futurism (Christianity) page), in the hopes of minimizing duplication, keeping source pages unimpeded by eschatological disputes, and making it more clear what comprises each of the eschatologies. I've moved some of the comparisons among these views to the Christian eschatology page, so that the core differences can be contrasted in one place. Skinrider (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

SDA interpretations

I believe that the SDA interpretations belong on this article. Note my edit summary 28/9/11 when I restored this material the first time: "Per WP:BRD, the actions taken here were excessive and un-discussed. Seveth-day Adventism is the most prominent contemporary historicist interpreter --> restoring content"

• The SDA church is the major (perhaps only) notable contemporary user of the historicist method of interpretation. So no problems with notability in relation to this article.
• this article is by no means suffering from length. Without the SDA material it becomes very short
• The material is more appropriate here than on the alternative pages. It is not as suitable for Four kingdoms of Daniel because there is discussion of timeframes, the cleansing of the sanctuary, SDA views on the prophecy of 70 weeks, etc.
• Book of Revelation is a poor location for this material. It is already a long article, and detailed expositions of the views of different denominations do not belong there. Notability is an issue there

To this end, I have restored the material here and am removing it from the other abovementioned articles. Please do not revert again without discussion, in line with WP:BRD. Tonicthebrown (talk) 09:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not argue with you that the SDA church is a notable contemporary user of the historicist method. It is confirmed by Kenneth G. C. Newport.

My arguement is that the SDA views should not dominate this page. length is not priority. It is not fair to the Anglican, Calvinist, and Presbyterian modern period historicist views to have the Adventist views dominating this ariticle. I also do not admonish posting all of Protestant views on this page, because it is way too much information. For example, it would not be right to go to the Seven seals page and MOVE the Protestant historicist views to this page in order to balance the article with the SDA views. All views and interpretations belong on the topic's page, not on this article. It is completly unbalanced and presents a misconception that the SDA view is the ultimate source of historcism. The main SDA interpretation belongs on that page of interest, and a link to that page should be provided here on this page with a short summary.

Further, I have posted an enhanced introduction to this page that captures the history of historicism. The scope of this page should be on its history not the actual interpretations.

Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 02:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I've made some modifications to the content's sections to allow for other historicist views to be inserted where appropriate. I've also omitted some SDA views that seemed to deviate from historicism.Jasonasosa (talk) 04:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)