The Great Whore is Religious Rome

[Earth Wind and Fire]

And even less (if possible) the Gospel of Jesus Christ because yours is the sad news of course legalism and salvation by works.

Your English is poor. You are not making yourself understood. Try again.

James's Central Concern: Faith That Works

The works James requires are not done apart from faith but done in faith, not done instead of faith but done because of faith. Faith is the underlying stance of Christian life; deeds are the way of life; becoming mature and complete is the goal of Christian life. James cannot be charged with opposing deeds to faith, since he does not say, "I will show you deeds instead of faith." Rather, he contends for a showing of both faith and deeds: I will show you my faith by what I do. He does not object to faith; he objects only to faith not accompanied by action. Simply stated, he wants Christians to have faith that works

 

[Rippon]

Your English is poor. You are not making yourself understood. Try again.

Come on EWF. You're the last one to tell someone that. Your posts have only one other competitor on the BB for poor spelling and grammar. ;-)

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Come on EWF. You're the last one to tell someone that. Your posts have only one other competitor on the BB for poor spelling and grammar. ;-)

Go chase yourself!:laugh:

 

[The Biblicist]

Hello biblicist...Here is from Days of Vengeance,by Chilton; It is much scripture to consider...but I find it hard to counter. As time permits consider it...the book is free online....Even if you do not see it as I do, there are many helpful thoughts he expresses throughout the book...

I have his book on Revelation. There are many insightful things in his book.

While some in recent years have attempted to see the Great Harlot of Revelation as the City of Rome, the Church throughout Christian history has generally understood that she is in some sense a False Bride, a demonic parody of the True Bride, the Church.

The Waldenses of old identified Rome as this Harlot even from the fifth century. However, that does not do away with the contrast between two religious institutions just as Chilton admits ("The Harlot is, clearly, the False Church"). Both are identified as women (harlot versus bride). Both are identifed as cities (earthly babylon versus New Jerusalem) and both contain true children of God (Rev. 18:4; 19:6-7). Judaism had already been enveloped in the Great Whore and the greater part of Christianity would be adulterted - 2 Cor. 11:2-4 when it joined with secular government under Constantine.

The Biblical motif of the Bride falling into adultery (apostasy) is so well-known that such an identification is all but inescapable. The metaphor of harlotry is exclusively used in the Old Testament for a city ornation that has abandoned the Covenant and turned toward false gods; and, with only two exceptions (see on v. 1-2, below), the term is always used for faithless Israel. The Harlot is, clearly, the False Church. At this point, however, agreement shatters into factionalism.

What chilton fails to see is that Israel already adulterated itself many times long before Christ came whereas, the New Testament predicts there will be a great apostasy not concerning Israel but concerning New Testament Christianity (1 Tim. 4:1-5; Mt. 25:24-25; Acts 20:27-30; 2 Thes. 2:3; etc.). This apostasy had already begun when Paul wrote near the end of his ministry and John described in present tense terms many "antichrists" already present.

To the Donatist heretics of the fourth century, the Catholic Church was the Whore. Some Greek Orthodox and Protestant theologians have seen her inthe Roman papacy, while many fundamentalists have spotted her tinsel charms in the World Council of Churches. Although it is true that there may be (and
certainly have been) false churches in the image of the Harlot, we must remember the historical context of the
Revelation and the preterist demands it makes upon its interpreters
. Merely to find some example of a false church and identify her as the Whore is not faithful exegesis. St. John has set our hermeneutical boundaries firmly within his own contemporary situation, in the
first century.

He has, in fact, stated definitely that the Harlot was a current phenomenon (17: 18), from which he expects his current readers to separate themselves.
Whatever modern applications are made of this passage, we must see them as just that: applications. The
primary significance of the vision must refer to the False Church of St. John’s day.

This is precisely where Chilton fails. Proper exegesis and historical context. Jerusalem is destroyed in A.D. 70 by Rome. However, this harlot is not destroyed until ten kings come into power and those ten kings had not yet come to power when John wrote this book. Those ten kings come into power when they join with the beast not only to destroy this harlot but to wage war against the King of kings at His coming. Hence, chilton has this obvious contradiction between his application of the whore to Jerusalem with its destruction by a PRESENT kingdom and John's prediction that this whore would not be destroyed by a PRESENT kingdom but ten kings that had not yet arisen:

12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.
14 ¶ These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.
15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.
16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.

Chilton's intepretation is exegetically impossible!

 

[Iconoclast]

You have not given a source. Where did it come from?
Who authored it?

If it is not your own material, then it is plagiarismIf it is not your own material, then it is plagiarism

.

If you read post 155...you will find the answer to your question.Thats why it said pt 2 on the second...it would not fit.

Plagiarism??? Do you think I am DR.ACH???:laugh:

 

[DHK]

If you read post 155...you will find the answer to your question.Thats why it said pt 2 on the second...it would not fit.

Plagiarism??? Do you think I am DR.ACH???:laugh:

Here are some problems with your posting.
First, you are not using the quote function properly. If you did, it would make it more readable, especially if you broke it up into smaller segments.
Second, David Chiltion's work, that you quoted from is free, and available on-line. You could quote from it and give a link. That would be better. You wouldn't have to post the whole thing, just parts of it, and allow the reader to go to the article and read it there.

As for the article itself, and your position, please read this article:

The revival of Biblical postmillennialism which we are witnessing in our day will be sustained only if it is fueled and fortified by diligent attention to the Scriptures. That is what makes so noteworthy a major publication of a commentary on the book of Revelation, such as David Chilton’s The Days of Vengeance (Ft. Worth: Dominion Press, 1987). The author devotes nearly 600 pages to exposing the text and theology of this “closed book,” and we must appreciate his labors—as well as the generosity of Dr. North in subsidizing them.

Since the study of Revelation is a special interest of mine, I am often asked for a brief evaluation of David Chilton’s commentary. This issue of Journey affords the opportunity to reply once in writing (saving personal repetition). Because the author and I are friends, because we share a common eschatological perspective, and because he sat through a year of my sixty-five lectures on Revelation (delivered a decade ago), many assume that his approach to Revelation is something I would commend. The reviewer in Journey (Nov-Dec 1987) saw it as “sound” biblical interpretation, indeed “a brilliant work.” Reluctantly, I cannot share either assessment. Here let me suggest another look.

There are, unquestionably, many encouraging and helpful things about David’s commentary. First, it is a modern restatement of a preterist and postmillennial interpretation of Revelation. Second, specific comments on a number of particular verses are accurate and insightful (e.g., 7:10, where the ascription of salvation to the Lamb is contrasted to claims of the Roman state). Third, in terms of “packaging,” the book is aptly titled, beautifully illustrated, and clearly written. Nevertheless, the hermeneutical excesses and errors of the commentary will prove far more detrimental to postmillennialism than any of its isolated virtues can redeem. Consider three fatal flaws....
http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pb075.htm

Now consider this link:
http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1987_chilton_days-of-vengeance.html
Your article is flawed. David Chilton is a dyed-in-the-wool Preterist. It is like asking the Catholic Bishop to defend the Catholic Church doctrine for you. Your source is biased.

http://ca.search.yahoo.com/search;_...,by+Chilton&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-715&xargs=0&b=1

In the above URL there are a number of links to David Chilton's "Days of Vengeance." The book is free; it is on-line. There is no need to quote large unedited passages as you did.

 

[Iconoclast]

The Biblicist

I have his book on Revelation. There are many insightful things in his book.

:thumbs:That is why your critique will be helpful:thumbs:

The Waldenses of old identified Rome as this Harlot even from the fifth century. However, that does not do away with the contrast between two religious institutions just as Chilton admits ("The Harlot is, clearly, the False Church"). Both are identified as women (harlot versus bride). Both are identifed as cities (earthly babylon versus New Jerusalem) and both contain true children of God (Rev. 18:4; 19:6-7). Judaism had already been enveloped in the Great Whore and the greater part of Christianity would be adulterted - 2 Cor. 11:2-4 when it joined with secular government under Constantine.



What chilton fails to see is that Israel already adulterated itself many times long before Christ came whereas, the New Testament predicts there will be a great apostasy not concerning Israel but concerning New Testament Christianity (1 Tim. 4:1-5; Mt. 25:24-25; Acts 20:27-30; 2 Thes. 2:3; etc.). This apostasy had already begun when Paul wrote near the end of his ministry and John described in present tense terms many "antichrists" already present.




This is precisely where Chilton fails. Proper exegesis and historical context. Jerusalem is destroyed in A.D. 70 by Rome. However, this harlot is not destroyed until ten kings come into power and those ten kings had not yet come to power when John wrote this book. Those ten kings come into power when they join with the beast not only to destroy this harlot but to wage war against the King of kings at His coming. Hence, chilton has this obvious contradiction between his application of the whore to Jerusalem with its destruction by a PRESENT kingdom and John's prediction that this whore would not be destroyed by a PRESENT kingdom but ten kings that had not yet arisen:

12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.
14 ¶ These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.
15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.
16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.

Chilton's intepretation is exegetically impossible!

[/QUOTE]
Okay...it will take me some time to re-read the section in scripture and the commentary.....if you think of any other thing that you saw as suspect, let me know..Thanks:applause:

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

Here are some problems with your posting.
First, you are not using the quote function properly. If you did, it would make it more readable, especially if you broke it up into smaller segments.

breaking it up loses the context...I highlighted by color certain parts but offer the rest for those interested in study material.

Second, David Chiltion's work, that you quoted from is free, and available on-line.

I know that.and posted it.

You could quote from it and give a link. That would be better. You wouldn't have to post the whole thing, just parts of it, and allow the reader to go to the article and read it there.

that is what i did.
As for the article itself, and your position, please read this article:

Now consider this link:
http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1987_chilton_days-of-vengeance.html

Your article is flawed. David Chilton is a dyed-in-the-wool Preterist.

I do not hold that Chilton or anyone else has it all perfect...but i will say this....I have not seen anyone attempt to match as amny OT verses with NT fulfillments in such a specific way. That is why I asked for interaction which biblicist offered more of so far.

DHK.....there are many views of eschatology....I do believe the full preterist goes to far. I am at this point a partial preterist however...so if I read Chilton or someone like him...I am on guard for those times where he might take that extra step going beyond what i believe is safe.

It is like asking the Catholic Bishop to defend the Catholic Church doctrine for you. Your source is biased.

Again...everyone has some bias...so we have to see if we spot where the difference is ...consider it , and see who is closer to the truth


http://ca.search.yahoo.com/search;_...,by+Chilton&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-715&xargs=0&b=1

In the above URL there are a number of links to David Chilton's "Days of Vengeance." The book is free; it is on-line. There is no need to quote large unedited passages as you did.
[/FONT][/QUOTE]


Well DHK...thanks for the links...did you notice the article of the early dating of the book of revelation:thumbs: take a look...

 

[DHK]

DHK

breaking it up loses the context...I highlighted by color certain parts but offer the rest for those interested in study material.

I tire reading long posts without any breaks. I won't do it. I am guessing that there are many others (like my wife) who also won't do it. It is hard on the eyes. I commend Biblicist for wading through it. I didn't. That is why I missed the reference first time.
To be fair, you should have provided one of those links to the author's work to avoid any accusation of plagiarism.
Read the different posts in the announcement section. Here is one of them.

Copywrited materials are just that, copywrited. When we find an interesting article on the WWW, be it on CNN, the article usually have an option icon for "printer friendly" or "print" options. This command usually compresses the article, withouth all the other stuff. We can, and should, provide that ULR (or link) when we quote an eye cathing paragraph from the whole article. I think this is what the Webmaster was referring to (give credit where credit is due).

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=10749
--Large amounts of information should not be directly copied. The link should always be given.

I do not hold that Chilton or anyone else has it all perfect...but i will say this....I have not seen anyone attempt to match as amny OT verses with NT fulfillments in such a specific way. That is why I asked for interaction which biblicist offered more of so far.

The author of this article gives three major flaws of Chilton's book, and why it should be rejected. You do realize he is a post-millennialist, don't you?

Finally, any commentary on Revelation which incorrectly interprets major figures in the book cannot be condoned or commended to others. This is the bottom-line failure of David’s book. It is a misreading of God’s book.

For instance, who is “Babylon, the harlot” about whom John “wondered with great wonder” in Rev. 17? God apparently wanted us to get this right; His angel undertook to “tell the mystery” of the woman (v. 7). Yet David’s commentary still misses the obvious. The angel identifies the harlot as “the great city which reigns over the kings of the earth,” a city set on seven hills (17:9, 18); she is the international commercial center of the ancient world (chap. 18). Given historical context, this is clearly a reference to Rome. But because David comes to these passages with a preconceived interpretive scheme, he awkwardly tries to make Babylon the harlot out to be Jerusalem! David’s strange rejoinder to the objection that the description of the harlot-city does not historically fit Jerusalem is that Revelation “is not a book about politics; it is a book about the Covenant” (p. 442). (David sure gets a lot “about politics” from this book when he wants to!) But the facts remains that “Covenant” literature does not, as such, justify historical error. Jerusalem never “reigned over the nations (even given the contrived reference to Ex. 19:6) and certainly was never—even “covenantly”—the principal importer of goods (even slaves) indispensable to the wealth of international merchants (Rev. 18:3, 11, 14:9). This is a major blunder.

Similarly, David interprets the “second beast” or “false prophet” who enforces worship of the Emperor (Rev. 13:11-18) as the leaders of Israel, despite the historical inaccuracies involved and with no compelling exegetical argumentation. This too comes from preconceived interpretive notions. The second beast is the pagan Emperor-cult itself (pagan ecclesia which stood behind the pagan “polis” or political structure), involving a crass idolatry (13:15) and delegated political power (13:12, 16-17) which were never characteristic of the Jews in Roman era.

So then, I cannot recommend my friend David’s commentary on Revelation. (1) It embodies an unsound, imaginative hermeneutic. (2) It is confused about the book’s structure and meaning. (3) It is guilty of considerable errors in history and interpretation.

But then, to be fair, I should alert the reader that the publisher, Dr. North, has already dispensed in advance with criticisms of the commentary. His preface warns that the commentary will take some heat, not because of its shortcomings, but because critics are “infected” with disdain over not discovering the “Tyler theology” themselves (pp. xviii-xix). I will let the reader decide “on the merits” of my critique whether Gary here commits the logical fallacy of “poisoning the well” or not. Printed words are easier to read than human hearts.

http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pb075.htm

Again...everyone has some bias...so we have to see if we spot where the difference is ...consider it , and see who is closer to the truth

The original argument was the date of the book of Revelation.
Almost every conservative evangelical commentary will give you a late date (in the 90's), except the liberals who are more interested in destroying prophecy and denying the fundamentals of the faith. The only other group interested in an early date, of course, is the Preterist. Instead of going to a more neutral source you went to some one who was already biased and was going to "prove" an early date even if it was wrong. Preterism can't work without an early date for Revelation. Throw history out the window. The book of Revelation must have an early date regardless of what the facts tell us. Right? Thus you have a biased source.

Well DHK...thanks for the links...did you notice the article of the early dating of the book of revelation:thumbs: take a look...

Of course. Preterism would fail without them. They, by blind faith assume an early date without facts. But most of Preterism is accepted blindly without facts in hand. Read the full critique from which I quoted above. He depends so largely upon allegorization that it makes a mockery of the Bible.

 

[Protestant]

Antichrist is a Vice Christ

“And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.”

From this end-times prophecy we learn several important truths:

1. A lineage of men [many] will claim to be Christians, but they are not Christians.
2. They will claim to represent Christ, but they are not His representatives.
3. They will claim power and authority given them by Christ, but no such power or authority was given.
4. They will claim an orthodox belief in the God-man Jesus Christ and by this false profession gain many adherents.
5. Their ability to deceive will be extraordinary, which is why the Lord tells his disciples – and all future disciples -- to ‘take heed.’
6. These false Christians will deceive many.

Jesus is laying the foundation for our understanding of Antichrist.

He will not be a Jew, Muslim, Buddhist or Atheist.

No mystery there. All are openly against Christ.

He will be a professing Christian.

Now we have a mystery.

Antichrist will not openly oppose Christ.

He will do it with great subtlety and deception.

He will not be limited to one man in history, but will be one of many.

The Greek prefix ‘anti’ has several subtle connotations.

Most Christians acknowledge it signifies being openly ‘against’ someone or something.

Abolitionists were openly ‘against’ slavery. They were openly ‘anti’-slavery.

Southern slaveholders openly claimed to be Christians.

They built many churches.

They memorized and quoted Scripture.

They were a religious people.

Yet their slave labor practice belied their Christian profession.

It is one thing to speak Christ’s words. It is another to do them.

The spiritual warfare in which Christians are engaged has similar application.

Although Antichrist will make public profession of his orthodox Christianity with an outward show of piety, he will deny Christ both by his teachings and practices.

As did the Southern slaveholders.

Antichrist is a Vice Christ

The Vice President of the United States represents the President when going on diplomatic missions, attending government functions, etc., in his stead.

In the same way a Vice Christ represents Christ and comes in His stead.

The Vice Christ will be Christ’s deputy – His alleged representative who allegedly has authority to rule in His name.

A biblical instance of ruling in another’s name is seen in Acts 12:18:

When Gallio was proconsul….. (NIV)
When Gallio was deputy…… (KJV)

In this usage Thayer defines the Greek prefix ‘anti’ as ‘in lieu of, ‘in stead of’….i.e., in place of.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
ἀνθυπατεύω; (ἀντί for i.e. in lieu or stead of anyone, and ὑπατεύω to be ὕπατος, to be supreme, to be consul); to be proconsul: Acts 18:12
STRONGS NT 445: ἀνθυπατεύω
“Act as deputy or proconsul.”

What is a Proconsul?

“In the Roman Republic a promagistrate (like a propraetor) designated someone who served with the authority and capacity of a magistrate without holding the office…. The greatest of these placeholder offices was a proconsul, who acted in place of a consul, itself the highest office in the republic.” (Wikipedia: Proconsul)

What is a Deputy?

“One appointed as the substitute of another, and empowered to act for him, in his name or his behalf;” (Wiktionary: Deputy)

Is the Pope Christ’s Deputy?

Many Christians are aware of the Pope’s title, Vicar of Christ.

What is the meaning of Vicar of Christ?

“(Latin Vicarius Christi). A title of the pope implying his supreme and universal primacy, both of honour and of jurisdiction, over the Church of Christ. It is founded on the words of the Divine Shepherd to St. Peter: "Feed my lambs. . . . Feed my sheep" (John 21:16-17), by which He constituted the Prince of the Apostles guardian of His entire flock in His own place, thus making him His Vicar and fulfilling the promise made in Matthew 16:18-19.” (Catholic Encyclopedia Online: Vicar of Christ)

The Pope rules over the universal Christian Church because Peter was designated the first Pope by Christ. The Pope is the Apostolic descendent of Peter. So say the RC Magisterium.

But Christ and His Word say otherwise.

What does the Latin noun ‘vicarius’ mean?

"1. a substitute, deputy, proxy, a locum tenens, vicegerent, vicar." (latinlexicon.org)

Conclusion: The Pope claims to be Christ’s Deputy, a Vice Christ.

He claims to come in Christ's name and in His authority to rule over His Church.

However, the Papacy is an unbiblical invented office of liars, thieves and murderers.

Therefore, the Pope is Antichrist.

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

I tire reading long posts without any breaks. I won't do it. I am guessing that there are many others (like my wife) who also won't do it. It is hard on the eyes

.

Read small portions at a time...meditate on the verses offered:thumbs:

I commend Biblicist for wading through it.

I enjoy Biblicists post...because he is a biblicist and a well read one at that.

I didn't. That is why I missed the reference first time.

I did not make it clear enough



[SIZE=3[QUOTE]]The author of this article gives three major flaws of Chilton's book, and why it should be rejected. You do realize he is a post-millennialist, don't you? [/QUOTE]
[/SIZE]

DHK...I have found that the amill and post mill brothers are not afraid to vigorously debate each other, even when they agree on 80% of the verses.

I am drawn to that kind of passion for truth and to be faithful to the scriptures.

The original argument was the date of the book of Revelation.
Almost every conservative evangelical commentary will give you a late date (in the 90's),

I had always read that date in the premill books...but never knew how they come up with that date.....Then I found out that most all of them read the one same source and keep quoting it as if it is in stone.

Some have made a case for the early date.

except the liberals who are more interested in destroying prophecy and denying the fundamentals of the faith

.

The men I read are in no way liberals

The only other group interested in an early date, of course, is the Preterist. Instead of going to a more neutral source you went to some one who was already biased and was going to "prove" an early date even if it was wrong.

DHK....in my home library I have many premill sources.I read them first.

Preterism can't work without an early date for Revelation

.

I am at this point a partial preterist...as some of the time texts seem quite clear.I am not the best spokesmen for the position as I am still looking at it as critical as i can.

Throw history out the window. The book of Revelation must have an early date regardless of what the facts tell us. Right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLLE4srpZOA notice he is well aware of the late date.

Thus you have a biased source

.

everyone develops a bias.

.

Read the full critique from which I quoted above. He depends so largely upon allegorization that it makes a mockery of the Bible.

[/QUOTE]

The symbolic language even when allegorical does have a literal fulfillment.
These men seek to use scripture to interpret scripture...so they seek clues from the language of the OT.

 

[Iconoclast]

This is precisely where Chilton fails. Proper exegesis and historical context. Jerusalem is destroyed in A.D. 70 by Rome. However, this harlot is not destroyed until ten kings come into power and those ten kings had not yet come to power when John wrote this book. Those ten kings come into power when they join with the beast not only to destroy this harlot but to wage war against the King of kings at His coming. Hence, chilton has this obvious contradiction between his application of the whore to Jerusalem with its destruction by a PRESENT kingdom and John's prediction that this whore would not be destroyed by a PRESENT kingdom but ten kings that had not yet arisen:

Biblicist...i see why you single this out...it is a bit thin so to speak...he see's it as symbolic. he also says that the people were aware of what he was explaining in the first century.

Do you hold a literal 10 nation confederacy idea....an actual future fight in the middle east, with a rebuilt temple and so on?

 

[The Biblicist]

Biblicist...i see why you single this out...it is a bit thin so to speak...he see's it as symbolic. he also says that the people were aware of what he was explaining in the first century.

Do you hold a literal 10 nation confederacy idea....an actual future fight in the middle east, with a rebuilt temple and so on?

Chilton admits that the seven mountains on which the Whore sits represents Rome and I quote:

"The seven mountains" again identify the Beast as Rome, famous for its seven hills..... - David Chilton, The Days of Vengeance, pp. 435-436

But then denies what sits upon those seven Hills is Rome but is rather Jerusalem. This is the height of inconsistency even in regard to spiritualization.

John denies that ALL TEN are yet present but yet ALL still future, but Chilton ignores that and claims they are PRESENT already with Rome and its invasion of Jerusalem. No such literal history exists to support this wild claim!

Chilton not only denies Revelation 17:13-14 refers to the Second Coming, but spiritualizes it into an attempt by Judaism and Rome to destroy Christianity at the time of the A.D. 70 destruction. He totally ignores the phrase "and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful." - Rev. 17:14 which proves this time refers to the Second Coming and not A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem.

Once you start IMAGINING things that the context does not and cannot support there is no end of perverting God's Word and Chilton plainly perverts the word of God here.

 

[Protestant]

Judas a type of Antichrist

"Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve."

Antichrist is the antitype of Judas Iscariot.

All Christians should have knowledge of the numerous types of Christ portrayed in the Old Testament.

But not all Christians have knowledge of the types which portray the Antichrist.

This sad fact is due to the concerted effort of Church ‘leaders’ – stewards of the Word of God – to teach errant interpretations of even the obvious and clearest portions of prophetic Scripture.

When traced to their origin these errant interpretations find the Roman Catholic Church as their prolific instigators.

Both the Futurist and Preterist views were the counter-Reformation response of the Jesuits to the masterful, detailed exposition of the Revelation by the Protestants who were all Historicists.

Why would Jesus choose a devil as one of His 12?

There can only be one paramount reason: He was signifying, through Judas, how the Antichrist would deceive the many.

He would claim allegiance to Christ, as did Judas.

He would claim to be a chosen member of Christ’s most prestigious inner circle, as did Judas.

He would claim spiritual miracles, as did Judas.

Yet he would betray Christ with a kiss, as did Judas.

For centuries Christians acknowledged the reigning Pope and his false, harlot Church as Antichrist and Mystery Babylon prophesied in Scripture.

Yet today there are so-called Christian prophecy ‘experts’ today who deny their testimony….the testimony of the martyrs of Jesus.

Who do you believe……the ones who were actually put to the fire or those who sit in their ivory towers of comfort spouting the wicked teachings of the Jesuits?

 

[Yeshua1]

Just curious as to why they would see isreal as being the great Whore, when the lord Himself used their national rejection to graft we gentiles into salvation by Yeshua, and that paul statedGod would always have a faith remnant saved out from among them, and that in alst days, isreal would be welcoming back Yeshua as messiah/king!

Will the whore be looking for that event?

 

[Yeshua1]

Chilton admits that the seven mountains on which the Whore sits represents Rome and I quote:

"The seven mountains" again identify the Beast as Rome, famous for its seven hills..... - David Chilton, The Days of Vengeance, pp. 435-436

But then denies what sits upon those seven Hills is Rome but is rather Jerusalem. This is the height of inconsistency even in regard to spiritualization.

John denies that ALL TEN are yet present but yet ALL still future, but Chilton ignores that and claims they are PRESENT already with Rome and its invasion of Jerusalem. No such literal history exists to support this wild claim!

Chilton not only denies Revelation 17:13-14 refers to the Second Coming, but spiritualizes it into an attempt by Judaism and Rome to destroy Christianity at the time of the A.D. 70 destruction. He totally ignores the phrase "and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful." - Rev. 17:14 which proves this time refers to the Second Coming and not A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem.

Once you start IMAGINING things that the context does not and cannot support there is no end of perverting God's Word and Chilton plainly perverts the word of God here.

Doesn't he equate AD 70 as the time of the second coming then?

 

[Iconoclast]

Doesn't he equate AD 70 as the time of the second coming then?

no...read the book...70 ad was a coming in judgement like many that happened in the OT. it was not the second coming.

 

[Iconoclast]

Just curious as to why they would see isreal as being the great Whore, when the lord Himself used their national rejection to graft we gentiles into salvation by Yeshua, and that paul statedGod would always have a faith remnant saved out from among them, and that in alst days, isreal would be welcoming back Yeshua as messiah/king!

Will the whore be looking for that event?

Where did God state that there would always be a faithful remnant beyond those who were in the first century who were in the foundational NT church?

Revelation speaks of two woman.....the bride...and the whore...

Here is an example of how he views the book...first -off;from page 35

Revelation is a Christian rewriting of Ezekiel. Its
fundamental structure is the same. Its interpretation
depends upon Ezekiel. The first half of both books leads
up to the destruction of the earthly Jerusalem; in the
second they describe a new and holy Jerusalem. There
is one significant difference. Ezekiel’s lament over Tyre
is transformed into a lament over Jerusalem, the reason
being that St. John wishes to transfer to Jerusalem the
note of irrevocable doom found in the lament over Tyre.
Here lies the real difference in the messages of the two
books. Jerusalem, like Tyre, is to go forever.”45 Consider
the more obvious parallels:46
1. The Throne-Vision (Rev. 4/Ezek. 1)
2. The Book (Rev. 5/Ezek. 2-3)
3. The Four Plagues (Rev. 6:1-8/Ezek. 5)
4. The Slain under the Altar (Rev. 6:9-11/Ezek. 6)
5. The Wrath of God (Rev. 6:12-17/Ezek. 7)
6. The Seal on the Saint’s Foreheads (Rev. 7/Ezek. 9)
7. The Coals from the Altar (Rev. 8/Ezek. 10)
8. No More Delay (Rev. 10:1-7 /Ezek. 12)
9. The Eating of the Book (Rev. 10:8 -11/Ezek. 2)
10. The Measuring of the Temple
(Rev. 11:1-2/Ezek. 40-43)
11. Jerusalem and Sodom (Rev. 11:8/Ezek. 16)
12. The Cup of Wrath (Rev. 14/Ezek. 23)
13. The Vine of the Land (Rev. 14:18-20/Ezek. 15)
14. The Great Harlot (Rev. 17-18 /Ezek. 16, 23)
15. The Lament over the City (Rev. 18/Ezek. 27)
16. The Scavengers’ Feast (Rev. 19/Ezek. 39)
17. The First Resurrection (Rev. 20:4-6/Ezek. 37)
18. The Battle with Gog and Magog
(Rev. 20:7-9/Ezek. 38-39)
19. The New Jerusalem (Rev. 21/Ezek. 40-48)
20. The River of Life (Rev. 22/Ezek. 47)

 

[Iconoclast]

The Biblicist

Hello B,

Chilton admits that the seven mountains on which the Whore sits represents Rome and I quote:

yes he does...all believe this...

"The seven mountains" again identify the Beast as Rome, famous for its seven hills..... - David Chilton, The Days of Vengeance, pp. 435-436

But then denies what sits upon those seven Hills is Rome but is rather Jerusalem. This is the height of inconsistency even in regard to spiritualization.

remember earlier in the book he developed this theme...here from the summary;

The Beast from the Sea is the Roman Empire,
embodied in Nero Caesar (pp. 135-138); the Beast
from the Land (also called the False Prophet) is Israel’s
religious leadership (pp. 139-142); and the Image of the
Beast is the apostate Jewish Synagogue (pp. 140-142).
Babylon, the Great Harlot-City, is old, apostate
Jerusalem (pp. 149, 168-169, 170). The New Jerusalem,
229

John denies that ALL TEN are yet present but yet ALL still future, but Chilton ignores that and claims they are PRESENT already with Rome and its invasion of Jerusalem. No such literal history exists to support this wild claim!

B.....I do not have enough understanding of all the historical alliances that existed with Rome at that time...I cannot speak authoritatively on this as yet. I am aware as I said...this "proof" is a bit on the thin side.

he did offer this however;

17:10, one of the seven kings
is currently on the throne; and St. John tells us that the
great Harlot “is [present tense] the Great City, which
reigns [present tense] over the kings of the earth”
(17:18). Again, the Revelation was meant to be
understood in terms of its contemporary significance. A
futuristic interpretation is completely opposed to the
way St. John himself interprets his own prophecy.

Chilton not only denies Revelation 17:13-14 refers to the Second Coming, but spiritualizes it into an attempt by Judaism and Rome to destroy Christianity at the time of the A.D. 70 destruction.

70 ad was a coming in judgement...not the second coming.I understand the second coming to be on the Last Day.

He totally ignores the phrase "and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful." - Rev. 17:14 which proves this time refers to the Second Coming and not A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem.

The language does not prove a future coming and literal battle...that language is used in the OT....

Deuteronomy 33:2
And he said, The Lord came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them.

and from pg 67;

7-8 Verse 7 announces the theme of the book, which
is not the Second Coming of Christ, but rather the
Coming of Christ in judgment upon Israel, in order to
establish the Church as the new Kingdom. He is
coming with the Clouds, St. John proclaims, using one
of the most familiar Biblical images for judgment (cf.
Gen. 15:17; Ex. 13:21-22; 14:19-20, 24; 19:9, 16-19; Ps.
18:8-14; 104:3; Isa. 19:1; Ezek. 32:7-8; Matt. 24:30;

Once you start IMAGINING things that the context does not and cannot support there is no end of perverting God's Word and Chilton plainly perverts the word of God here.

I see him trying to fit the OT pieces into the Nt writing.He might not have gotten all the pieces just right...but If this is all that he is being questioned on....I still see most of what he wrote as viable so far.

 

[DHK]

remember earlier in the book he developed this theme...here from the summary;

The Beast from the Sea is the Roman Empire,
embodied in Nero Caesar (pp. 135-138); the Beast
from the Land (also called the False Prophet) is Israel’s
religious leadership (pp. 139-142); and the Image of the
Beast is the apostate Jewish Synagogue (pp. 140-142).
Babylon, the Great Harlot-City, is old, apostate
Jerusalem (pp. 149, 168-169, 170). The New Jerusalem,
229

Chilton, and other Preterists, are known for their allegorization. The one who introduced this method of spirtualizing the scriptures is Origen, a well known heretic. Some call him the "Father of Arianism," and even the RCC label him as a heretic. The one who popularized the allegoric method of interpretation more than anyone is Augustine.
Baptists, in general, have stayed away from that form of interpretation for it leads to error. The Charismatics use it to justify their erroneous dreams and visions and wayward doctrines that they derive from such experiences. But we take the Bible literally.
Chilton's method of interpretation has been found wanting. The author of this critique has explained it well:

Interpretive Maximalism


A commentary on holy Scripture must be appraised, not only for what it concludes (its harmony with the Bible’s system of doctrine), but likewise for the way it handles the word of God (its interpretive method). This is the cardinal area of offense in Days of Vengeance. David admits to consciously trying to simulate the hermeneutical style of James Jordan’s designated “interpretive maximalism” (IM).

IM claims to be in tune with patristic hermeneutics, holding that “everything in Scripture is symbolic.” Those benefited with “sufficient imagination” can allegedly see the significance in the “literary architecture” of particular Biblical texts—the way the story is told, even its minor details, what its imagery has in common with other stories, the number of times words are repeated, etc. (pp. 36-37). For instance, because doorposts could be likened to legs, Jordan claims that the passover blood smeared on doorposts corresponds to the blood of circumcision—which in turn is equivalent to the tokens of virginity from the wedding night (I am not kidding; cf. The Law of the Covenant, pp. 82-83, 252-258). Jordan finds esoteric meaning in the fact that the word “another” is used exactly six times in Judges 17:1-6. Karl Hubenthal’s book review of Jordan’s commentary on Judges in Journey: May-June, 1987) duly criticized this as allegorizing the text. Jordan’s “defense” in the Nov-Dec Journey was two-fold: (1) Cassuto also reasons in this way [so what?], and (2) this was an ancient literary devise.” Well, the ancient world certainly did sport many heretic, esoteric, and especially allegorical works (e.g., Philo), but I find it strange that Jordan makes the Bible one of them! IM leaves the interpreter with an unsure game of “guessing” (as the end of Jordan’s letter admits), rather than a confident “Thus saith the Lord.”

David’s commitment to the imaginative guesswork of IM renders his commentary on Revelation unsound. Take as one example his treatment of Rev. 7;1-8 (the revealing of the 144,000). The text says that winds are inhibited from hurting “the earth, the sea, or the trees” (vv. 1, 3). David mistakenly claims that the change from genitive to accusative case for “tree” in v. 1 is meant to draw “special attention” to that word. In fact, the change of case simply pertains to the use of the Greek preposition epi: the wind blows “upon” the earth and sea (epi with genitive), but blows “against” the trees (epi with accusative). What makes this more than an embarrassing error in Greek grammar is the “special attention” David now gives the word “trees.”

He suggests that, since trees are figures for righteous men elsewhere in Scripture, the protection of trees in Rev. 7:1 symbolizes the protection of God’s people. The suggestion is open to obvious criticism. (1) We may not take for granted that figures of speech have the same referent in every Bible occurrence (e.g., both Jesus and Satan are called “lions”; cf. the multiple use of “stars” in Revelation). Why don’t trees represent the monarchs (Dan. 4:10, 22) or—“maximally”—all of the above? (2) David’s “maximal interpretation” of Rev. 7:1-3 is plainly arbitrary. Not only trees, but also “earth and sea,” are there protected. He tells us elsewhere that the sea symbolizes heathen nations who hate the Lord (pp. 318, 327). Following his logic, should we infer that Rev. 7 speaks of God protecting not only the righteous (trees), but also the heathen (sea), from judgment? (Actually, David also takes the sea to represent ethnic Gentiles and the abyss of hell: pp. 251, 317. Are either being protected from the “wind” of God’s judgment according to Rev. 7:1-3?)

http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pb075.htm
IM or Maximal Interpretation does not do justice to the Bible, and is hermeneutically wrong.