Chilton denied the Second Coming event, the physical resurrection of the body, and had very pecular heurmaneutics, so why even use him at all?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.
-
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
Of course you do yes or no answers. You do them all the time, just not in discussions about the Bible, which I feel is a huge mistake. As Tom Cassidy pointed out, "Let your yea be yea, and your nea, nea." That's Bible.
Server: "Would you like fries with that?"
Iconoclast: "I feel that fries are a misuse of the potato plant. However, they do have a modicum of taste to them that I relish."
Server: "Huh? Does that mean yes??"
I do yes and no answers all the time. I stand up for what I believe. If I say "yes," it's pretty hard for someone to claim I meant "no."
"JoJ, are you a dispensationalist?"
Answer: "Yes, and unashamedly."
I'll say exactly why I started this thread. I'm not ashamed of it. This thread exists to combat the damage you have done on the BB by claiming Chilton over and over as a good source for interpreting the Bible, and agreeing with Gary North that he cannot be successfully answered. I finally got tired of your constant dependence on this guy.no worries....you can have this thread...I know why it exists
As I have shown and will continue to show, Chilton did not know the Greek and had awful hermeneutics. This makes him completely unreliable as a source. You may continue to use him, but hopefully others will be turned away from his ignorance.
Good! So you will no longer reference Chilton as an expert, is that correct?I will go back to the threads studying the bible, rather than a person...sayonara
Last edited:
Dude....he wrote that after coming out of a coma!..give him some slack, he did not fully remember the names of friends....
He wrote this before his mental struggles....he wrote it, so I have to source him on this section.
If I quoted him and did not reference the quote....you would chide me for not giving the reference....correct?Of course you do yes or no answers. You do them all the time, just not in discussions about the Bible, which I feel is a huge mistake. As Tom Cassidy pointed out, "Let your yea be yea, and your nea, nea." That's Bible.
Server: "Would you like fries with that?"
Iconoclast: "I feel that fries are a misuse of the potato plant. However, they do have a modicum of taste to them that I relish."
Server: "Huh? Does that mean yes??"
I do yes and no answers all the time. I stand up for what I believe. If I say "yes," it's pretty hard for someone to claim I meant "no."
"JoJ, are you a dispensationalist?"
Answer: "Yes, and unashamedly."
I'll say exactly why I started this thread. I'm not ashamed of it. This thread exists to combat the damage you have done on the BB by claiming Chilton over and over as a good source for interpreting the Bible, and agreeing with Gary North that he cannot be successfully answered. I finally got tired of your constant dependence on this guy.
As I have shown and will continue to show, Chilton did not know the Greek and had awful hermeneutics. This makes him completely unreliable as a source. You may continue to use him, but hopefully others will be turned away from his ignorance.
Good! So you will no longer reference Chilton as an expert, is that correct?
If you notice, I gave you credit for showing some defects in those posts...I even said it was helpful...
Where did I say he was an expert on the whole bible? I might not remember that
The James passage is not speaking of a yes or no response.....context....but I do not want to derail this valuable thread
As I have already pointed out somewhat, Chilton had a poor grasp of some terminology. This is true in the area of hermeneuics. For example, he never mentions "allegorical interpretation" or "grammatical historical interpretation," or the normal term for any other widely recognized methods. He instead makes "literalism" a pejorative. In fact, the term "hermeneutic(s)” itself only occurs once in PR, actually in a book title in the bibliography on p. 294. DOV is not much better. TGT never uses the term.
On p. 199 of PR, he talks about hyperbole (not using the term), but doesn’t recognize that as a figure of speech.
Though he talks a lot about interpretation in PR, nowhere does he mention: figure of speech, simile, personification, or hyperbole.
He only uses the term “metaphor” twice in PR: p. 18 about the water for the woman at the well, and p. 79 about the barren fig tree: “Israel was a garden, a vineyard, in rebellion against its owner; or, to change the metaphor, it was a tree without fruit.” If he is all about symbolism and allegorical interpretation, why doe he not talk more about metaphors?
On p. 199 of PR, he talks about hyperbole (not using the term), but doesn’t recognize that as a figure of speech.
Though he talks a lot about interpretation in PR, nowhere does he mention: figure of speech, simile, personification, or hyperbole.
He only uses the term “metaphor” twice in PR: p. 18 about the water for the woman at the well, and p. 79 about the barren fig tree: “Israel was a garden, a vineyard, in rebellion against its owner; or, to change the metaphor, it was a tree without fruit.” If he is all about symbolism and allegorical interpretation, why doe he not talk more about metaphors?
Last edited:
Yes, because referencing quotes is not only the ethical thing to do, it's a rule on the BB.
But I'm hoping that now you will abandon him.
Great! Glad to help.
I don't remember any such thing either. I never accused him of that or you of saying it.
Thanks for not derailing the thread.
I too like straight forward answers.
But I would have to qualify my answer to your question to yourself.
"TCassidy, are you a dispensationalist?"
No, except in a very minimalist manner. Old Testament dispensation, New Testament dispensation, Kingdom dispensation.
But I am not completely down on Chilton. He does do really good Motor Manuals. Oh. Wait. Never mind. Wrong Chilton.
Amazon.com: chilton auto repair manuals: Books
I too like straight forward answers.
But I would have to qualify my answer to your question to yourself.
"TCassidy, are you a dispensationalist?"
No, except in a very minimalist manner. Old Testament dispensation, New Testament dispensation, Kingdom dispensation.
But I am not completely down on Chilton. He does do really good Motor Manuals. Oh. Wait. Never mind. Wrong Chilton.
Amazon.com: chilton auto repair manuals: Books
Does Chillton have a Car Repair for Dummies? That's the one I'd need.
I too like straight forward answers.
But I would have to qualify my answer to your question to yourself.
"TCassidy, are you a dispensationalist?"
No, except in a very minimalist manner. Old Testament dispensation, New Testament dispensation, Kingdom dispensation.
But I am not completely down on Chilton. He does do really good Motor Manuals. Oh. Wait. Never mind. Wrong Chilton.
Amazon.com: chilton auto repair manuals: Books
T.C. ... Is that the ARV Bible?... The Automobile Revised Version?... Being mechanically disinclined its all Greek to me... Brother Glen
He still held to that while in his right mind. correct?
Not correct....
he became a full pretierist correct?
Excuse me???? So you claim that RC Sproul has bad hermeneutics because he disagrees with your eschatology?
Help! I need counseling!
You sure do!
Yes, he died a Preterist who denied the coming of the Lord and resurrection of the dead.
Headed home until Monday, at which time I'll finish up this thread with some notes about Chilton's use of numerology. Have a great weekend, everyone!
He was a heretic at the end then?
Preterists do NOT deny the coming of the Lord, nor the resurrection of the dead. The say he has come, & the spiritually dead are raised at conversion & glorified at death with spiritual bodies.
But what did Chilton actually say before his death? Your statement may not be an accurate expression of his belief.
The problem is that there is NO historical evidence that Jesus has already had his second coming, and the rapture event will be physical resurrection of the body!
I mbelieve Scripture LITERALLY AS POSSIBLE. While I know there's some figurative/symbolic passages, such as the dragon drawing a third of the stars with its tail, we should know what they mean thru our hindsight.
If we "make" Scripture to mean something besides what it ACTUALLY SAYS, then, as Dr. Bob said, it becomes subjective rather than objective. That's what many quasi/pseudo/Christian cults do, as well as the purveyors of false doctrines such as "word/faith", "regenerative baptism", and preterism do to try to justify their hooey. (Not to mention KJVOs!)
If we "make" Scripture to mean something besides what it ACTUALLY SAYS, then, as Dr. Bob said, it becomes subjective rather than objective. That's what many quasi/pseudo/Christian cults do, as well as the purveyors of false doctrines such as "word/faith", "regenerative baptism", and preterism do to try to justify their hooey. (Not to mention KJVOs!)
- Status