Me too!!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
David Chilton's Hermeneutics
- Thread starter John of Japan
- Start date
- Status
Which you never really seem to offer....
Once you deny the kingdom of God, you will deny the resurrection of the dead as well. Chilton ended up doing that as well.
It has been offered. You just don't accept it unless it agrees with your preconceived Preterist interpretation.
AMEN!
"A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;" Tit. 3.10
I had forgotten that, or maybe not realized it. I don't know how anyone could say denying the resurrection is not heresy.
Some believe the Bible interprets the symbols
At last, a post from you that approaches the OP of this thread. I will answer this as soon as you answer my question, which I am asking very clearly and simply for the 6th time. (So enough with your silly accusations that I don't answer things, when I can't even figure out what you're asking.)
Time #6: Do you agree with Chilton's IM?
Last edited:
Fake Theology advocates misrepresent others, answer questions with questions, and disparage those that hold actual biblical views. If we do not stick with a consistent method of interpretation, we engage in agenda driven interpretation, when the same source language construction is interpreted to mean very different things so as to fit with the fake theology view of the interpreter.
It is often a characteristic (going back to Augustine) of those who believe in allegorical ("spiritual") interpretation to arrogantly dismiss those of us who hold to a literal (grammatical-historical) method. According to many of them, including Chilton, we are not spiritual, we are lazy, and not diligent in our Bible study. (Meaning of course that he himself was diligent, wise and spiritual.) I started out the thread with one such quote from Chilton in Post #3. Here are more:
He is insulting toward a literal hermeneutic, accusing us of bordering n "Biblical illiteracy," in DOV, p. 121: "In any case, the words upon you indicate a local coming; the failure of commentators and preachers to understand this simple fact is the predictable result of a flat, futurist hermeneutic bordering on Biblical illiteracy."
He essentially accuses dispensationalists of not even being saved in DOV, p. 129: "By twisting such passages as these to suit their passing fancies, certain modern dispensationalists have added to the Word of God, and detracted from its message; and they thus come under the curses of Revelation 22:18-19."
On p. 15-16 of PR, he critiques a “literalist” commentary for interpreting figures of speech as figures of speech!! He lists 12 figures of speech (which are clearly figures of speech to anyone with an English education) from the Bible, then writes: "There are few 'literalists' who would disagree that these pictures in Revelation are meant to be understood symbolically. What we must recognize, however, is that symbols are used throughout the rest of Scripture as well, right alongside very literal language."
On p. 53 of PR, he mocks those of us who interpret literally as being "lazy-minded and undisciplined": “The Revelation is a revelation: it was meant to be understood. It will not, however, be understood by lazy-minded and undisciplined thrill-seekers, who are in such a hurry that they have no time to study the Bible."
He is insulting toward a literal hermeneutic, accusing us of bordering n "Biblical illiteracy," in DOV, p. 121: "In any case, the words upon you indicate a local coming; the failure of commentators and preachers to understand this simple fact is the predictable result of a flat, futurist hermeneutic bordering on Biblical illiteracy."
He essentially accuses dispensationalists of not even being saved in DOV, p. 129: "By twisting such passages as these to suit their passing fancies, certain modern dispensationalists have added to the Word of God, and detracted from its message; and they thus come under the curses of Revelation 22:18-19."
On p. 15-16 of PR, he critiques a “literalist” commentary for interpreting figures of speech as figures of speech!! He lists 12 figures of speech (which are clearly figures of speech to anyone with an English education) from the Bible, then writes: "There are few 'literalists' who would disagree that these pictures in Revelation are meant to be understood symbolically. What we must recognize, however, is that symbols are used throughout the rest of Scripture as well, right alongside very literal language."
On p. 53 of PR, he mocks those of us who interpret literally as being "lazy-minded and undisciplined": “The Revelation is a revelation: it was meant to be understood. It will not, however, be understood by lazy-minded and undisciplined thrill-seekers, who are in such a hurry that they have no time to study the Bible."
It appears from JOJ's analysis, the Chilton fits the bill as an advocate of fake theology. He disparages those that hold differing views. Those of us who believe the Bible says what it means, and means what it says are castigated as less than diligent. Sound familiar?
I have already responded to this 4x starting here...last Monday;
You posted a solid link to Bahnsen being critical of Chilton on revelation 7. I could see the basis of Bahnsen being critical there, so that was good. I believe Chilton tried to force or impose a meaning that was not there.
That link also tells me that Bahnsen did not object to his ideas on Revelation 6 however.
I offered similar comments 3x....let me try this to help you;
[QUOTEIM claims to be in tune with patristic hermeneutics, holding that “everything in Scripture is symbolic.” ][/QUOTE]
I do not think everything in scripture is symbolic
You do not think every thing in scripture is literal ,correct?
That being said.....if you cannot see that God has used thorns and briars to speak of apostate persons, I would say you were blind as a bat.
Ezekiel 2:6
And thou, son of man, be not afraid of them, neither be afraid of their words, though briers and thorns be with thee, and thou dost dwell among scorpions: be not afraid of their words, nor be dismayed at their looks, though they be a rebellious house.
hint; it is not literal briars and thorns speaking...it is apostates.
Was that a "yes" or a "no?"I have already responded to this 4x starting here...last Monday;
You posted a solid link to Bahnsen being critical of Chilton on revelation 7. I could see the basis of Bahnsen being critical there, so that was good. I believe Chilton tried to force or impose a meaning that was not there.
That link also tells me that Bahnsen did not object to his ideas on Revelation 6 however.
I offered similar comments 3x....let me try this to help you;
[QUOTEIM claims to be in tune with patristic hermeneutics, holding that “everything in Scripture is symbolic.” ]
I do not think everything in scripture is symbolic
You do not think every thing in scripture is literal ,correct?
That being said.....if you cannot see that God has used thorns and briars to speak of apostate persons, I would say you were blind as a bat.
Ezekiel 2:6
And thou, son of man, be not afraid of them, neither be afraid of their words, though briers and thorns be with thee, and thou dost dwell among scorpions: be not afraid of their words, nor be dismayed at their looks, though they be a rebellious house.
hint; it is not literal briars and thorns speaking...it is apostates.
I do not usually answer anything with a yes or no....especially in a wag the dog, distraction thread
James 5:12 . . . let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.I do not usually answer anything with a yes or no....especially in a wag the dog, distraction thread
A straight forward answer is always better than obfuscation.
The only obfuscation going on is premillenial obfuscation....
That is why only an amill...(martin)...and pb......offered on the verses in question.....in facing the issue so far.
The issue is not noticing that sometimes scripture uses symbols....it is seeing the link that scripture makes using the scripture to interpret the symbols.
Obfuscation is trying hard to force everyone into a full preterist position, or say that any attempt to view and identify the symbols is allegorizing..
I consider the full preterist to be mistaken,but that does not mean I cannot glean truth from something they see in scripture.
I like AW.Pink.....but in cleanings from Genesis if I recall correctly he said something about 3 compartments in the Ark represented the trinity????
A person can have some truth and be mistaken elsewhere.
If a man has health issues, goes into a Coma, comes out and cannot remember people he knew before the Coma.....I am not going to judge him post Coma...on things he might not have seen clearly at that time.
That judgment is God's.
No you didn't. The question required a simple yes or no, and you still have not given that. The question also required you to actually read and understand about the IM method of Chilton, and until this post you have not shown that you understand IM.
That was not an answer to my question, which was a simple query about a vital subject for understanding Chilton. My conclusion has been that you do not understand Chilton, whom you have touted so much on the BB.You posted a solid link to Bahnsen being critical of Chilton on revelation 7. I could see the basis of Bahnsen being critical there, so that was good. I believe Chilton tried to force or impose a meaning that was not there.
That link also tells me that Bahnsen did not object to his ideas on Revelation 6 however.
At last! You have finally given some semblance of a straight answer to what was actually a very simple query.
If nothing else, I now understand why you oppose basic literal hermeneutics--you yourself have trouble giving a straight, literal answer.
Right back on the merry-go-round. As I have said over and over, the Bible uses figures of speech, as does all literature in all languages. Such figures of speech should be interpreted as they are, literary devices to enhance the central message of a text. This is basic English, so I'll give a quote from my English 101 textbook: "Figures of speech make your writing more vivid and concrete" (College Grammar and Composition Handbook, by James Chapman, p. 132).
Why are you trying to derail the thread? Are you afraid of me giving more crazy statements and illogical positions held by Chilton, your erstwhile hero?
Here's the deal. In any basic class on hermeneutics (2nd year in Bible college), one learns that any metaphor or other figure of speech in the Bible can have more than one meaning, depending on the context. For example, leaven is a metaphor for something good in Matt. 13:33, but something bad in Matt. 16:6.
So, when you harp on so about "briers and thorns," I'm thinking, "What in the world is that about? It's not connected at all to the OP, and is a very minor subject in prophecy."
Chilton only mentions the phrase once in DOV, and that's in a quote from Isaiah which he then does not exegete. He mentions the phrase twice in PR, but again only in Scriptures quotes which he then does not discuss. He does not mention the phrase at all in The Great Tribulation (TGT).
But hey, I will briefly answer. Yes, maybe "briers and thorns" can mean apostates. It can also mean something else. In Judges 8 and Is. 7 the thorns and briers are literal. In other passages there are figures of speech with various meanings. The classic commentary by Keil and Delitzsch says about Ez. 2:6, "Thistles and thorns are emblems of dangerous, hostile men" (Vol. 9, p. 50). So what does that have to do with the thread? Please get back to the OP and stop trying to derail it.
Last edited:
Now I would like to show that Chilton apparently forgot English 101. Over and over he shows he does not understand basic terms taught in that class. For example, let's consider what an idiom is. He does not use the term in his books except in DOV, and here is what he says:
"No one knows the new name, Christ says, but he who receives it. The meaning of this expression, rooted in a Hebrew idiom, is that the name is "known" by the receiver in the sense of owning it." (DOV, 111)
"As we saw at 2:17, the New Testament use of the words for know (ginosko and aida) is influenced by a Hebrew idiom, in which the verb to know acquires related meanings: to acknowledge, to acknowledge as one's own, and to own . (DOV, 483).
These statements make Chilton sound erudite and scholarly, but:
1. He gets the second Greek word for "know" wrong. It's the obsolete eido, "I see," not aida, and it occurs in the NT in the perfect tense as oida, "I know," which is the form occurring in the lexicons. There is no Greek word aida, though the word does occur in Japanese as 間.
2. He tells us nothing about the Hebrew idiom which supposedly influenced the Greek. There may be cases where a Hebraism occurs with "know" (Eph. 5:5 with ginosko, some scholars say), but how do we know Chilton's point is one of them? As he often does, he simply states his case without proof.
3. Actually, I don't think he knew what an idiom was. A Hebraism and an idiom are not necessarily the same. He doesn't use the term "idiom" at all in his other books, and only three times in DOV.
"No one knows the new name, Christ says, but he who receives it. The meaning of this expression, rooted in a Hebrew idiom, is that the name is "known" by the receiver in the sense of owning it." (DOV, 111)
"As we saw at 2:17, the New Testament use of the words for know (ginosko and aida) is influenced by a Hebrew idiom, in which the verb to know acquires related meanings: to acknowledge, to acknowledge as one's own, and to own . (DOV, 483).
These statements make Chilton sound erudite and scholarly, but:
1. He gets the second Greek word for "know" wrong. It's the obsolete eido, "I see," not aida, and it occurs in the NT in the perfect tense as oida, "I know," which is the form occurring in the lexicons. There is no Greek word aida, though the word does occur in Japanese as 間.
2. He tells us nothing about the Hebrew idiom which supposedly influenced the Greek. There may be cases where a Hebraism occurs with "know" (Eph. 5:5 with ginosko, some scholars say), but how do we know Chilton's point is one of them? As he often does, he simply states his case without proof.
3. Actually, I don't think he knew what an idiom was. A Hebraism and an idiom are not necessarily the same. He doesn't use the term "idiom" at all in his other books, and only three times in DOV.
John of Japan,
I did answer. I do not do yes or no answers, especially with posters who would then add to the answer by drawing and attaching a false conclusion to it.
You will not find me posting anywhere that I support everything he said , or if I quote from a full preterist, or a theonomist, or reconstructionist.
I can see value in some statements based on the verses offered.
In this case it is very simple.
I offered verses, and supported it with a quote from DOV...on REV.6 :12-17
you never dealt with those verses in comparing them, but in typical dispensational fashion, you isolate, and fragment the verses....you obscure them ....and they as a group are swept aside.
Instead you offer several threads trying to flee a real answer.
Saying this...stating the obvious....is not an answer;
from post58-
[QUOTE]Right back on the merry-go-round. As I have said over and over, the Bible uses figures of speech, as does all literature in all languages. Such figures of speech should be interpreted as they are, literary devices to enhance the central message of a text. This is basic English, so I'll give a quote from my English 101 textbook: "Figures of speech make your writing more vivid and concrete" (College Grammar and Composition Handbook, by James Chapman, p. 132).[/QUOTE]
Great insight!...Except everyone knows that already.....but then you do not offer on it other than to say.....this is a figure of speech
You and others make little if any attempt to see if they are connected biblically......on Revelation 6 Chilton did that.....I do not care about any other section of his book....I said concerning his quote in rev6:12-17 that no premill person would take it on and give a solid answer on this section and that is the case still today.
I am not looking to "understand Chilton"...but rather the scriptures used in Rev6, isa 13, isa 34, ezk 32, joel 2, mt 24, acts 2.....
I do not care if they are offered by the clerk at the grocery store....it is the verses that are being offered.
I have no trouble with that...I have trouble with premills touting that they are"rightly dividing" the word of truth, when in reality they are wrongly dividing and fragmenting the scripture.
I am just answering you as you have "fled to the mountains" in this wag the dog thread, I will return back to the original series of threads now and let you go on in your quest.....
It was an example taken from scripture to demonstrate what I was saying.
You denied it at first as you dismissed when asked if it spoke of apostates, at first you said...NOPE , now I see you have to admit it is possible??? that's good as the writer to Hebrews beat you to it
Well....I did not get it from Chilton at all...but rather from biblegateway
There you go
no worries....you can have this thread...I know why it exists
I will go back to the threads studying the bible, rather than a person...sayonara
.
I did answer. I do not do yes or no answers, especially with posters who would then add to the answer by drawing and attaching a false conclusion to it.
You will not find me posting anywhere that I support everything he said , or if I quote from a full preterist, or a theonomist, or reconstructionist.
I can see value in some statements based on the verses offered.
In this case it is very simple.
I offered verses, and supported it with a quote from DOV...on REV.6 :12-17
you never dealt with those verses in comparing them, but in typical dispensational fashion, you isolate, and fragment the verses....you obscure them ....and they as a group are swept aside.
Instead you offer several threads trying to flee a real answer.
Saying this...stating the obvious....is not an answer;
from post58-
[QUOTE]Right back on the merry-go-round. As I have said over and over, the Bible uses figures of speech, as does all literature in all languages. Such figures of speech should be interpreted as they are, literary devices to enhance the central message of a text. This is basic English, so I'll give a quote from my English 101 textbook: "Figures of speech make your writing more vivid and concrete" (College Grammar and Composition Handbook, by James Chapman, p. 132).[/QUOTE]
Great insight!...Except everyone knows that already.....but then you do not offer on it other than to say.....this is a figure of speech
You and others make little if any attempt to see if they are connected biblically......on Revelation 6 Chilton did that.....I do not care about any other section of his book....I said concerning his quote in rev6:12-17 that no premill person would take it on and give a solid answer on this section and that is the case still today.
I am not looking to "understand Chilton"...but rather the scriptures used in Rev6, isa 13, isa 34, ezk 32, joel 2, mt 24, acts 2.....
I do not care if they are offered by the clerk at the grocery store....it is the verses that are being offered.
I have no trouble with that...I have trouble with premills touting that they are"rightly dividing" the word of truth, when in reality they are wrongly dividing and fragmenting the scripture.
I am just answering you as you have "fled to the mountains" in this wag the dog thread, I will return back to the original series of threads now and let you go on in your quest.....
Correct....and what is also correct is that If scripture uses a "figure of speech " over and over....it could be trying to tell us something....
It was an example taken from scripture to demonstrate what I was saying.
You denied it at first as you dismissed when asked if it spoke of apostates, at first you said...NOPE
, now I see you have to admit it is possible??? that's good as the writer to Hebrews beat you to itWell....I did not get it from Chilton at all...but rather from biblegateway
.
There you go
So what??? no wonder we are not making progress....so what indeed
no worries....you can have this thread...I know why it existsI will go back to the threads studying the bible, rather than a person...sayonara
- Status