He surely did deny both at the end.
-
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
He surely did deny both at the end.
He became a full on pretierist, correct? That is why even Gary North disavowed his theology?
Does Chillton have a Car Repair for Dummies? That's the one I'd need.
It's called Pontiac Restored.
That is what I understand.
A (Full) Preterist by the name of Ed Stevens wrote a book first published in 1981 entitled, What Happened In A.D. 70? The Fifth Edition, published in 1997, included this Foreward by Chilton:
"The more I pondered the awesome implications of Jesus’ words, the more I realized their truly revolutionary significance for eschatology. Without exception, every event foretold by the Biblical prophets was fulfilled within that generation, as Jesus said. Scripture foretells a Second Coming – not a third!"
I am not being deceitful, kyredneck. I am only presenting facts.
"The more I pondered the awesome implications of Jesus’ words, the more I realized their truly revolutionary significance for eschatology. Without exception, every event foretold by the Biblical prophets was fulfilled within that generation, as Jesus said. Scripture foretells a Second Coming – not a third!"
I am not being deceitful, kyredneck. I am only presenting facts.
Yes, you are being deceitful. Full Preterists DO NOT deny the resurrection or the coming of Christ. They deny your version of it.
I don't want to defend Chilton, whom I've hardly started reading yet, but there is another side to this.
The ECFs and their over-literal interpretations were responsible for two serious errors picked up on by the Church of Rome.
'This is My body.' 'For My flesh is food indeed and My body is drink indeed.' Well what could be clearer than that? Why do we not take these words literally? Perhaps we should all believe in Transubstantiation.
'.....Born of water.....' 'The washing of regeneration.' I think Justin Martyr was the first to speak of baptism as 'regeneration.' He was followed by almost all the other Fathers and baptismal regeneration is taught today by the Church of Rome.
The Lord Jesus said, "However, when He, the Spirit of truth is come, He will guide you into all truth.' The truths of Scripture are spiritually discerned (cf. 1 Corinthians 2:14).
This was where and how all heresies started, specifically and especially these two 'things' which RC worship instead of the Living God.
Take yourself for example. <<'.....Born of water.....' 'The washing of regeneration'>> taken for the same thing, <<spiritually>>, but the RC made a human show of with a few drops of water or with enough water to drown in. Heresy is always <spiritually>. Truth is always Reality, "SUBSTANCE" 'etsem'-"BONE".
Christ's "Body" or "flesh" was REAL, and so was his "blood". For reason of having been "BONE", 'etsem, "Substance", the "eating and drinking" of Christ's "flesh" and "blood" is, in reality, spiritually. Not 'spiritually' in 'reality' the corrupt way RC makes of the spiritual Reality of Divine Truth, the physical object of satanic, demonic, <spiritual> idolatry.
I stand corrected. They confess both but claim they occurred in A.D. 70.
This is actually a smoke screen. Luke tells us in 22:20 "Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you."
Obviously NOT taking it literally. "This cup" is obviously metaphorical language meaning the contents of the cup.
John of Japan,
I asked him to respond....looks like he also is not quite up to it.
John....it was nice that you pointed this out. But as you tell your students, context, context, context......is king.
A man asked Ken Ham if the word yom can me a long period of time, he said yes, but it can also mean a 24 hour day.He asked again , and Ken Ham kept saying, yes, but it can also mean a 24 day.
This is the same thing....it can and does mean STARS.....
The passages being discussed are clearly speaking of stars...light givers...,
Meteors do not give or reflect light....you offered on the issue, but it was clearly the wrong answer.....in fact you have missed it totally....
No translation says what you offer...
joel2;10 The earth quaketh before them; the heavens tremble; the sun and the moon are darkened, and the stars withdraw their shining
no asteroids, no meteors, but stars.....
That is your point of view...the more I bring it up, and the more you seek to dismiss and cover it up shows me how wrong you are about this.
Your explanation is no real explanation...it does not fit the verses in question.
You are wrongly dividing the word of truth.
I understand your frustration as I have experienced it also, but you have tried and offered on it.....but it is not a real answer that anyone agrees with, you will not consider the alternative view which gives a clue why you are really going to continue to struggle....or.. you will ignore it and try and dismiss it as you are trying to do now....I will go back to my thread now, roby if you can answer the question come to spiritual interpretation 6 and try,
Another premill person came forward saying this;
I asked him to respond....looks like he also is not quite up to it.
John....it was nice that you pointed this out. But as you tell your students, context, context, context......is king.
A man asked Ken Ham if the word yom can me a long period of time, he said yes, but it can also mean a 24 hour day.He asked again , and Ken Ham kept saying, yes, but it can also mean a 24 day.
This is the same thing....it can and does mean STARS.....
The passages being discussed are clearly speaking of stars...light givers...,
Meteors do not give or reflect light....you offered on the issue, but it was clearly the wrong answer.....in fact you have missed it totally....
No translation says what you offer...
joel2;10 The earth quaketh before them; the heavens tremble; the sun and the moon are darkened, and the stars withdraw their shining
no asteroids, no meteors, but stars.....
.
That is your point of view...the more I bring it up, and the more you seek to dismiss and cover it up shows me how wrong you are about this.
Your explanation is no real explanation...it does not fit the verses in question.
You are wrongly dividing the word of truth.
.
I understand your frustration as I have experienced it also, but you have tried and offered on it.....but it is not a real answer that anyone agrees with, you will not consider the alternative view which gives a clue why you are really going to continue to struggle....or.. you will ignore it and try and dismiss it as you are trying to do now....I will go back to my thread now, roby if you can answer the question come to spiritual interpretation 6 and try,
I am giving up on all linguistic or translation interaction with you. You insist on putting the English meaning back into the Greek and Hebrew. You don't understand that a word can have more than one meaning. You understand nothing about Bible translation and translating a polysemous word with only one meaning. You think that Bible words have no existence outside of the Bible, and therefore the normal meaning of a word in its secular context is irrelevant. You simply don't understand words.
Not to mention, you keep trying to derail my threads--over and over again, as you are with this post. And you can't even give a yes or no answer to a simple question. Am I frustrated with you and your poor responses? Over and over. It's no wonder you have become post-mil, a position so illogical that it used to be held by liberals, and even they gave up on it with the advent of Hitler and WW2.
Last edited:
What are you doing on this thread? You're not a Baptist. "Yield not to temptation."
To say that the 2nd coming and resurrection occurred in 70 AD in some kind of spiritual fashion is to deny them both in their physical reality. Full preterists deny the physical 2nd coming and resurrection, and are therefore heretics.
Moderators, please shut this rascal down. I've had my say about Chilton's hermeneutics, and no one has even tried to defend him. It's strayed so far from the OP now that non-Baptists are chiming in, and we need a metaphorical telescope to see the OP. 
Taking your bat and ball and going home in a huff?
Sorry...it is just another non response and explaining away of scriptural language.....take a poll and see how many think stars mean stars in these 6 or 7 verses....there is no shame in saying you cannot answer these verses.
Postmill writers refer to your ww2 objection as newspaper exegesis rather than scriptural study.
They deny the physical resurrection, and that it is still future, so heresy!
At the OP's request, this thread is closed.
Moderators, please shut this rascal down. I've had my say about Chilton's hermeneutics, and no one has even tried to defend him. It's strayed so far from the OP now that non-Baptists are chiming in, and we need a metaphorical telescope to see the OP.
No, he is getting frustrated with your seeming unwillingness to engage in actual discussion.
In the past, I have had a lot of respect for you and your ability to defend your position, even if I disagreed.
But in this thread, you seem to have majored on not answering John's questions, obfuscation of the points, and repeated attempts to deflect the discussion.
Sadly I am beginning to lose respect for your apologetics in this thread.
posted with the Admin team's permission. KR
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status