Prior to his death in 1997, David Chilton held to "such notions".
"Some of you know my sort of gradual movement into full preterist position...I recently ran across a passage in ‘Paradise Restored’, that now I look at and think; that should have pushed me over the cliff, twelve years ago into full preterism! I don’t know why it didn’t! I don’t know what I would have done if somebody had come to me and said, ‘David Chilton, look at what you said!’ What I’m getting at is, here I am as a full preterist..." (David Chilton, Conference on Bible Prophecy, Oklahoma City, 1997)
"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!" (David Chilton, Foreword to "What Happened in AD70?", 1997)
The partial preterist finds he continually loses verses to what happened in AD 70. Passages he thought refered to our future, he now knows, have already been fulfilled. Many will cling to just one or two verses. Acts 1:11 is famous for this. They’ll say, "Well, that hasn’t happened yet", and declare that the Bible still teaches a future-to-us physical coming.
Question: Could you have come up with a whole future system of things, all of your ideas of another coming of Christ, from one or two verses?
If God never said it, it should never have been a thought in our head!
Partial preterism is merely syncretistic. Mixing the truth of preterism with the falsity of futurism.
How is it that David Chilton went towards heresy? Is that what we do? We just wake up one morning, and decide to embrace what we know is heresy? Could it be that David Chilton got it ?
Eulogy for David Chilton
By Kevin Craig
I met David Chilton, author of The Days of Vengeance (a commentary on the Book of Revelation), The Great Tribulation, and Paradise Restored (an introduction to preterist eschatology) in 1977 or 1978, while he was attending classes at Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, MS. We became very good friends, and I shared the pulpit with him at Reformation Bible Church in Anaheim, CA. As a Chalcedon Scholar, I joined David on occasion as a kind of substitute for R.J. Rushdoony at Rush's weekly services in Westwood, CA. We worked together on the writing of books and newsletter articles. The 1st edition of his book Productive Christians In An Age Of Guilt Manipulators evidences our friendship in the Acknowledgments and in the text.
There seems to be an unwritten rule that Reconstructionist relationships must never last more than 6 years. Our relationship was no exception. David joined the "Tyler" reconstructionists with their liturgical high-church doctrines, and I was moving toward my own Vine & Fig Tree ideas of decentralization.
Before he became a consistent preterist (or, as Gary North puts it, a "heretic"), David 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 this planet. Nevertheless, he continued to believe this, the "orthodox" doctrine of the "Second Coming," because it had been taught for nearly 2000 years by "Holy Mother the Church" (Chilton's words).
After his heart attack, he apparently abandoned the doctrine that the institutional church has priority over the Scriptures.
North's analysis of Chilton is disturbing on a personal and a theological level. On a personal level, it indicates that Dr. North (and others who have criticized Chilton for his "outbursts" or other "irrational" behavior) never really knew David as a person. Reconstructionists treat each other as commodities (see North's remark, "I bought orthodoxy," or his characterization of Chilton as "the 'hottest theological property' in the West." ["Publisher's Epilogue," Paradise Restored, ppbk ed., p.334n7]) Any non-economist who knew David Chilton knew that he was a person with transparent emotions. To those who kept their feelings under wraps, David appeared melodramatic and irrational. He was full of song and joy, or mourning and lamentation. His "outburst" against Vern Crisler was simply the typically zealous fire of Chiltonasius contra mundum (although it is true that as a result of his heart attack and coma, he momentarily forgot who Crisler was, and his zeal was misdirected). Chilton's vigorous personality and open emotions are now being used to dismiss his paradigm-shifting theological conclusions. Those who argue in this way are likely either deceptive or ignorant of David's life-long personality.
On a theological level, North is equally disturbing.
What is "Orthodoxy?"
Who is more orthodox, the person who clearly misinterprets 99 out of 100 passages but could possibly be right on one, or the person who possibly misinterprets only 1 out of 100, but unarguably gets the other 99 right? Let me be more specific. Let's say that there are 100 total verses on prophecy which have been used throughout church history to support the doctrine of the Second Coming. Verses such as Matthew 24:30:
Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
Many Reconstructionists can remember the first time they read Rushdoony, who relied on the work of J. Marcellus Kik, who showed with clear and convincing passages of Scripture that Matthew 24:30 was talking about events in A.D.70, not a future Second Coming. It was a "paradigm shift." Living in the vicinity of Chuck Smith's Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa, I remember how this way of seeing put us at odds with most Bible-believing Christians in Orange County (and I think Chilton and I both relished the idea of being at odds with the reigning "orthodoxy"). What I didn't realize then was that it also put us at odds with the Westminster Divines, who erred on this point. Their basic hermeneutical approach is erroneous. The Westminster Standards apparently lack even the most elementary understanding of preterism (the belief that Matthew 24 and other passages are already fulfilled). Whatever you believe about Matthew 24:36ff., you should know by now that Matthew 24:30 is talking about Jesus' Coming in judgment against covenant-breaking Israel. All Reconstructionists and virtually all Reformed writers agree on this. This is now (in the late 20th century) Eschatology 101. The Westminster Standards — and thus "orthodoxy" itself — are in fundamental hermeneutical error on these points (see Larger Catechism, Q 56).
I submit that if there are 100 such verses, "orthodoxy" errs on 99 of them, because of this need for a "paradigm shift." There is one verse (I am granting this for the sake of argument) which could possibly refer to a non-A.D.70 coming, but could also apply to the events in A.D.70. This verse is the last resort of modern (esp. Reconstructionist) "orthodoxy" in its defense of the "Second Coming." Even though Chilton is right on 99% of those verses, and even though "orthodoxy" is wrong on 99%, because David Chilton disagrees with the "orthodox" interpretation of that one verse he is burned in Effigy (a quiet suburb outside Tyler).
We are facing a wonderful and dramatic opportunity to prune back dead branches of "orthodoxy" and revive the Church with the pure teachings of Scripture. In order to be successful, we cannot make the shift in only one area (e.g., eschatology), but must make the same shift in thought that David Chilton did. No longer can we say "I believe because Holy Mother the Church teaches." No longer can we say "I act because Big Brother the State commands." We must take our marching orders from Christ.
What do YOU think ?
Submit Your Comments For Posting Here
..Will Be Spam
Filtered and Posted Shortly..
Date: 22 Dec 2005
Time: 18:43:47
Comments:
This is Pastor David Sarinana, dsarinana@aol.com from Downey California.
I Would love to speak with Kevin Craig. How can I get his information.
Thank you
