Talk:Historicism (Christian eschatology)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Historicism (Christian eschatology) article.
Article policies
Historicism (Christian eschatology) is within the scope of WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Seventh-day Adventist Church and Seventh-day Adventist Church-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church To-do:
Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)