# Difference Between Chiliasm and Historical Premillenniumism



## Justified (Jan 8, 2015)

I know many in the early church believed Chiliasm. What difference, if any, is there between the two?


----------



## DMcFadden (Jan 8, 2015)

> I know many in the early church believed Chiliasm. What difference, if any, is there between the two?



Chiliasm is an older term for millennialism. In Reformation times, the use of the term was for what we understand today as historic premillennialism as opposed to dispensational premillennialism.

So, when you read an older writer speak of early millennialism in the church, they will often use the term "chiliasm" rather than the one more popular today.


----------



## Justified (Jan 8, 2015)

The two listed in the title, i.e., Chiliasm and Premillenialism. And thanks, I believe you answered my question.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 9, 2015)

Chiliasm always has negative connotations; historic premil not so much.


----------



## Justified (Jan 9, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> Chiliasm always has negative connotations; historic premil not so much.



What negative connotations does Chiliasm have?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 9, 2015)

Justified said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> > Chiliasm always has negative connotations; historic premil not so much.
> ...



In the older literature it is always used to refer to "crass Jewish fables" and those who believe in a carnal (e.g., Isaiah 25 and 55) millennium. The Second Helvetic Confession is quite clear on this point.

Moving beyond the Reformed pale, Eastern Orthodoxy condemned "chiliasm," which was quite humorous given that a number of their saints were premillennialists.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 9, 2015)

And part of the problem concerns what is meant by "Jewish fables." If it means a literal account of Isaiah 25, 55, etc., then I cheerfully hold to Jewish fables. If it is a reference to some Talmudic literature, which was often quasi-p**ngraphic, then there is a legitimate concern.


----------



## TylerRay (Jan 9, 2015)

My understanding is that chiliasm is an ancient blanket term for millenarianism. Historic Premil would fall underneath chiliasm; as would dispensationalism and ancient Jewish millenarianism.


----------



## Justified (Jan 10, 2015)

Thank you for your insight, Jacob.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jan 10, 2015)

Here is an excerpt from Everett Ferguson's book on Church History, Vol. 1:



> Christian Chiliasm placed the resurrection of the righteous (the first resurrection) at the time of Jesus Christ's return and the inauguration of his earthly rule from Jerusalem. Based on Revelation 20:3, this view fixed the length of this rule as 1,000 years, hence the designation millennium (Latin) or chiliasm (Greek). At the end of this period the remainder of human beings will be raised for judgment with the subsequent eternal separation in either heaven or hell.
> 
> Chiliasm was an integral part of the polemic against Marcion and the Gnostics in Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian..... Other Champions of Chiliasm in early Christianity were Papias, Voctorinus, and Lactantius.



He later talks about the Non-Chiliastic view, which we would call the Amill position. He further writes:



> This non-chiliastic current of eschatological thought was widely pervasive in early Christianity and is represented in such writers as Hermas, Polycarp, the authors of the Epistle to Diognetus, Ascension of Isaiah, Apocalypse of Peter, Martyrdom of Polycarp, and Letter of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Cyprian.


----------

