David Chilton:Days of Vengeance (An Exposition of The Book of Revelation)

[Mayflower]

Anyone read : David Chilton-Days of Vengeance (An Exposition of The Book of Revelation) ? Thoughts ?
Is he a full preterist ? I only know that he also the author of Paradise Restored (defense of postmill.)

 

[Puritanhead]

Chilton is an apostate, and an arrogant one on top of that.

 

[Mayflower]

Originally posted by Puritanhead
Chilton is an apostate, and an arrogant one on top of that.

Dear Ryan,
Can you explain why ?

 

[Puritanhead]

Originally posted by Mayflower

Originally posted by Puritanhead
Chilton is an apostate, and an arrogant one on top of that.

Dear Ryan,
Can you explain why ?

Gary North offered critiques of Chilton, and I think they had a debate. I'm not familiar with it. Look it up.

First, if you want to know why I say he is arrogant, then read the introduction to Chilton's book. His book is an utter waste of time anyway. I tried to stumble through it in 2004 at Regent's library.

Second, if you want to see why I call him an apostate, know that Chilton has since concluded that there were no verses in the Bible which taught a future (to us) coming of Christ, in which Christ would bodily return to the earth. You can the beg implications of where this theology leads people. I don't know what else there is to say in criticism. I would only add that critics of full preterism point to the Apostle Paul's condemnation of the doctrine of Hymaneus and Philetus (2 Tim. 2:17-18), which they regard as analogous to full preterism, as I do as well.

I recognize the imminence of Christ's present Kingdom, and we cannot ignore the implications of the Olivet Discourse, and this is where hyper-futurists and/or dispensationalists are in grave error, because they ignore much realized eschatology and refute the orthodox teaching on Daniel 9. Now, granted I see dual fulfillment in many prophecy areas. For this reason, I find George Eldon Ladd's explanation of the here, not here tension to Christ's Kingdom amenable to me. Irrespective of one's millennial view, I think the extremes of preterism and futurism fail to describe the nature of Christ's Kingdom, because it is a present reality, and a future reality. Likewise, Ladd wrote this interesting aside:

The Kingdom can draw near to men (Matt. 3:2; 4:17; Mark 1:15; etc.); it can come (Matt. 6:10; Luke 17:20; etc.), arrive (Matt. 12:28), appear (Luke 19:11), be active (Matt. 11:12). God can give the Kingdom to men (Matt. 21:43; Luke 12:32), but men do not give the Kingdom to one another. Further, God can take the Kingdom away from men (Matt. 21:43), but men do not take it away from one another, although they can prevent others from entering it. Men can enter the Kingdom (Matt. 5:20; 7:21; Mark 9:47; 10:23; etc.), but they are never said to erect it or to build it. Men can receive the Kingdom (Mark 10:15; Luke 18:17), inherit it (Matt. 25:34), and possess it (Matt. 5:4), but they are never said to establish it. Men can reject the Kingdom, i.e., refuse to receive it (Luke 10:11) or enter it (Matt. 23:13), but they cannot destroy it. They can look for it (Luke 23:51), pray for its coming (Matt. 6:10), and seek it (Matt. 6:33; Luke 12:31), but they cannot bring it. Men may be in the Kingdom (Matt. 5:19; 8:11; Luke 13:29; etc.), but we are not told that the Kingdom grows. Men can do things for the sake of the Kingdom (Matt. 19:12; Luke 18:29) but they are not said to act upon the Kingdom itself. Men can preach the Kingdom (Matt. 10:7; Luke 10:9), but only God can give it to men (Luke 12:32)
"”Ladd, George E. The Presence of the Future. (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., p. 193.)

Regardless, I just know I will go home to be with the Lord at my death, or during the Second Advent, whichever comes first. But the resurrection has NOT come to past. I don't know the mysteries of God, or fathom the metaphysics of the Lord's redemptive workings, but, "We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord" (2 Corinthians 5:8). I await my future bodily Resurrection!!!

Gentry and Sproul are at least respectable, because they affirm orthodoxy surrounding the resurrection, and core tenets of the faith. They repudiate full-preterism. Though, their case for a pre-70 A.D. dating of Revelation is incredibly weak, and I think the preterist framework is only as strong as its weakest link. Therefore, it is not very strong. Having said that, I very much credit Sproul with opening my eyes on thorny eschatological questions. As Edmund Burke says, "He that struggles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper." Sproul at least challenged me by the questions he raised. And I had to better address realized eschatology. Only later did I gain a satisfactory grasp of the already, not yet tension to the Kingdom of God with further study.

Finally, I make a marked dichotomy between their partial-preterism and consistent preterism. I can respectfully disagree with Gentry, North and Sproul. However, Chilton on the other hand is off his rocker. I wouldn't even waste time arguing or debating with full-preterists. They are a bunch of cankersore dogs, who speak with poison on tips of their tongues. Give them over to Satan, as the Apostle Paul says. They add about as much strength to the church body, as sores do to the human body.

 

[Pilgrim]

My understanding is that the book in question does not advocate full preterism. Chilton had a massive heart attack in 1994 followed by a coma and apparent brain damage. It was after this that he began to advocate full preterism, something that he had consistently denounced as heresy before.

There has recently been a discussion of Chilton and hyper-preterism on the reformedchristianculture Yahoo group. See these posts, especially 4458:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/reformedchristianculture/message/4455

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/reformedchristianculture/message/4457

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/reformedchristianculture/message/4458

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/reformedchristianculture/message/4464

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/reformedchristianculture/message/4472

 

[Pilgrim]

Bahnsen review of Days of Vengeance.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Originally posted by Pilgrim
My understanding is that the book in question does not advocate full preterism. Chilton had a massive heart attack in 1994 followed by a coma and apparent brain damage. It was after this that he began to advocate full preterism, something that he had consistently denounced as heresy before.

He also subsequently died sometime later but I don't recall how long after. He at least had a conscience given his letter of repentance in the ARC excommunications. http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/tyler.htm

 

[caddy]

Interesting review.

Sounds like Chilton's book is a TOTALLY confusing misinterpretation of the book of Revelations.

Originally posted by Pilgrim
Bahnsen review of Days of Vengeance.

 

[beej6]

Interesting. I'd never even heard of the ARC before.

re: Chilton's commentary - Derek Thomas recommends reading it to his RTS students (I'm inferring this from this comments in his book _The Essential Commentaries..._), but also notes that Chilton's views are 'unique' and 'weird,' at times.

Chris Poe, that's an interesting medical fact you've mentioned... I need to think about that before I post on that one..

 

[Kevin]

Ryan, Chris is correct, Chiltons alleged shift to a heretical view came after he "recovered" from his coma. It is also worth noting that his "new" view was never published but was contained in a letter.

I once asked Ken Gentry about this ( he was a friend of Chiltons) and he put it down to the after effect of his stroke/coma. He (Gentry) said he saw many changes in Chilton after his recovery, mostly relating to his mental abilities. He said at the time that it seemed that certain heretics were trying to take advantage of him and his "name" by trying to get him on the record in favor of their (heretical) views.

As far as the book goes it is worth a look. I would not go to it first or even second but it does have some good insights. It certainly does NOT contain any heresy!

 

[Puritanhead]

Originally posted by Kevin
Ryan, Chris is correct, Chiltons alleged shift to a heretical view came after he "recovered" from his coma. It is also worth noting that his "new" view was never published but was contained in a letter.

I never said his book advocated full-preterism, which is why I said "...know that Chilton has since concluded..." Nonetheless, his book is still wrought with error in any case.