Why There is Reasonable Doubt Regarding David Chilton
Filed Under (dee dee's posts, hyperpreterism) by dee dee on 06-06-2009
Tagged Under : David Chilton
Many hyperpreterists like to tout David Chilton as one of their “trophies,” a very solid orthodox man who “apparently” apostasized to hyperpreterism. I put the word apparently in quotes because it isn’t quite so simple as that. There is no doubt that David Chilton was a brilliant man, and I still use his orthodox works today. After he embraced hyperpreterism, some orthodox preterists pointed that this happened right after he had a massive heart attack with potential brain damage. Hyperpreterists point to work that David Chilton did as an avowed hyperpreterist to prove that he was lucid and coherent.
Here is an email that was published publicly by hyperpreterists as part of a long set of emails from David Chilton. This particular email was from David to a Chalcedon Foundation address (it appears to be Andrew Sandlin) tragically on the very day he died.
I have bolded some parts which show that there is a very reasonable foundation to believe that David Chilton was not entirely in possession of his full faculties and that such may have been the cause of an “apparent” apostasy, but one that will not be counted against him as due to an injury. Only God knows.
Hi Pal, Quite awhile ago (I don’t know how long, but months), you e-mailed me, and never heard from me again! Sorry. It wasn’t that I was being rude, I just didn’t know how to e-mail back! Only very recently have I begun answering people, and today for the first time I’ve started to send e-mail to people who’ve e-mailed me in the past. You’re near the top of the list! So Hello! I assume you know about what happened to me a little over 3 years ago: I had a massive heart attack, went into a coma, was diagnosed as “brain-dead,” and even when I woke up I’d forgotten everyone and everything, and was blind too! Since then, by God’s grace, I’m off all medications but aspirin, got an A for the course in Logic at the local college last year, am back to writing and speaking (but *not* pastoring), and I jog ten miles a day! Shucks, I think if I’d been living like this all my life, it never would’a happened anyway! But actually, I’m *glad* it did! I think I learned some things, I think my theology is better (not everyone would agree with me there!), and I think I’m a better person (most *would* agree with that!). I’ve listed over 30 changes in either my personality or more physical things (such as I can see in the dark now!), as well as more irritating things such as short-term memory loss. But that has the advantage of making me pay attention to things more, so that in some ways I at least *act* smarter! But really, I have it on the highest neurological testimony that I can “see” things many others don’t! (Not just in the dark!) It’s also resulted in some theological changes, and in a few months I’ll have an article in the Preterist magazine *Kingdom Counsel* about it. You can e-mail them at: preterist1@aol.com, and find out what’s cookin’ and when I’ll be in. Anyway, I think my heart attack, coma, and “brain-death” is the greatest thing that ever happened to me! Do you think Jacob regretted his limp? (Gen. 32:24-31) If you send me your snail-mail address, I’ll send you the articles I wrote about it.
God bless you,
David Chilton
The site that contained these emails is no longer active, but I retrieved a copy from the Internet Archive and have a .pdf of it preserved in my records. The rest of document contained emails arguing for hyperpreterism with snide commentary thrown in by the hyperpreterist who compiled this document. I will not use my blog for those activities.
Either way, I met him shortly before his death, spoke alongside of him at a conference in Oklahoma City and meet with him and we spoke at length about his change in theology.
I am certain his physical condition affected him in ways none of us can imagine unless we experienced it ourselves. Whether he converted or not, I admired him as a scholar (before and after) and my level of respect for him was unaffected by his obvious physical struggles (which were evident as he stood that night to speak at the conference). His presentation was thoughtful and his arguments reasonable. But he did struggle to speak and he was having difficulties that could be seen.
Nothing he said at the end of his life changes what he accomplished previously, nor does it take away from the content he wrote. Personally, I was sad to hear of his passing at such an early age, with so much more that could have been accomplished. I do not subscribe to the view that God “took him” in death because it was “his time to go” but that his body was no longer able to sustain life. David now walks among those righteous without any physical infirmities and with his theology in tact.
Larry you do not believe that God is sovereign over the times of our deaths?
My personal belief is that the last years of David’s life were part of an extended illness and its effects which included his theological swings and thus are not counted against him. Therefore, I expect to see him among the elect. This subject needed to be addressed by me because certain hyperpreterists (not you) like to mock when I use David as a source and say that I admire his scholarship. They say “Well his scholarship leads to hyperpreterism.”
I do not believe that is correct. I believe the tragic health circumstance he endured left with side effects which included unsound theological thinking that was beyond his control, and thus, not a sin. If it were not for those hyperpreterists, I would not bring this up. I am uncomfortable discussing the private details of another in this manner; it seems ghoulish. But the same sort of hyperpreterist who mocks, obtained these emails from Ed Stevens, and published them publicly–something that is unknown whether David would have approved of or not. From what I glean about David, he probably wouldn’t have minded them being posted; he would have minded them being posted in the spirit that they were posted.
I have been ever wondering what happened of his family. I remember he had a young son. I pray they are well.
I believe in His Sovereign “foreknowlege” about the time of our birth, our life, our death, but I do not believe that He CAUSES the death of people. He KNOWS the number of our days and the end from the beginning, but I do not believe He sets an appointment and takes our life at precisely the predetermined moment in time.
I am very careful about invoking the name of David Chilton. I felt badly for the loss experienced by his family, friends and loved ones. My understanding is that he was a wonderful man who loved the Lord. I felt the same way when Keith Green died in the plane crash with his children as also with Rich Mullins (who wrote Our God is an Awesome God)…
I knew someone who know Chilton and talked to him about some of these things. She stated that Chilton held to an AD96 writing of Revelation which was a hamper to the HP position. She also said she agreed with Chilton that the millenial reign began in AD70, and didn’t finish then.
Have you run across anything that shows where Chilton adopted an earlier dating for Revelation?
Hmm that is total news to me. I didn’t read much of his HP stuff, but I am fairly certain that he held to a pre-AD70 date in Days of Vengeance, or am I wrong? I admit I only read through the book cover to cover once as it is pretty outrageously esoteric in some parts, but I had been back to selected portions numerous times, and always thought he held to an early date.
Also, I am fairly certain that Chilton had a teaching tape on how the millennium had already restored paradise (to counter his prior book) so it is likely he held to an eternal millennium view or something odd, but I don’t think he held to any view that was contrary to HP, but I wouldn’t be surprised. The man thought he was granted supra-human abilities so obviously something was misfiring in his brain.
I just pulled “Days of Vengeance” and in Chapter 5 and Chilton defines the Millenium as the Kingdom of Christ.
I think it’s Chilton’s statement in Chapter 5 page 531, he says those who hold to a heretical form of “preterism” are not conforming to any recognizable form of orthodox Christianity.
In that chapter section Chilton is addressing the Resurrection, which he affirms is bodily, and the Last Judgment where he says every man is judged.
I also pulled Paradise Restored and he upheld a bodily resurrection there also.
To me, his qualifications here and his warnings in his own writings are pretty significant.
I think I’m going to read both of these again and see if I find any mention of AD96. She was pretty adamant about that and she wasn’t HP.
We probably both know others who knew him. This may be a very important question to bring forth especially in light of his earlier statements in his own work.
Dee Dee,
I didn’t have to go too far into “Days of Vengeance”.
The answer is found in Chilton’s preface when he says that Revelation is about the aproaching destruction of Jerusalem in AD70. He still doesn’t date it, but it does appear that if he held to an AD96 writing at one point, and I do believe that report, he changed his position.
Also, it’s not Chapter 5, it’s Part 5, section 20 where he talks about the heretical form of preterism.
Dr. David Chilton was a graduate of Whitefield Theological Seminary (M.Div. and Ph.D.). He had attended Reformed Theological Seminary but had not completed his studies. I spent many hours on the phone with Dr. Chilton. He was always gracious in all our conversations and exchanges. He had come to Whitefield at the recommendation of Dr. R. J. Rushdoony.
When Dr. Chilton had one of his heart attacks, that event was burned into my mind when I was told that they had brought him back from death on the table multiple times (I believe it was at lest 16 but maybe 21 times). He had massive heart damage and was in a coma for a short time. I had called him when he returned home and at that time his lovely wife informed me could not speak due to his condition. He called me some time later. He was still confused about various things and had just entered into the “logic course” he spoke of in the e-mail posted by Dee Dee. Dr. Chilton’s doctor told him that if he had another major attack, it would result in his death.
Dr. Chilton was reassessing his thinking about various issues including eschatology, but as to the cause, I would be only speculating (although we did speak about these issues on the phone). There is no question that these tragic events in his life did have an impact. I know that he had lost some of his reasoning ability (the reason for taking the logic course) and theological knowledge previously developed before the heart attacks (having had a stoke over five years ago, I can identify with the loss of knowledge and the amount of time it takes to restudy all those areas that were affected). There was at the time a lot of conjecture as to why he embraced hyper-preterism.
Dr. Chilton called me prior to his trip to Australia. At the time, he was still running ten miles a day. He was very excited about his speaking tour. I remember saying to him “David, what ever you do, don’t let them exhaust you with multiple daily speaking events for the month you are there. Be sure to keep up the running and eat healthy.” He assured me that he would not let them do that to him. When he returned, he called me at the Seminary to let me know how the trip had gone. I did not even recognize his voice. He was exhausted and said that he had done what he promised me he would not let them do. I was fearful then that he had physically hurt himself. He passed away sometime later. Dr. Children, as I was told at the time, was at his office when he realized that he was in the beginning stages of another heart attack. He called his wife to tell her he loved her. He passed shortly thereafter.
Dr. Chilton was a very intelligent individual. It was a privilege to have known him as a student and friend. Dr. Chilton had often expressed his loved for the Lord and His Church.
Job 14:5: “Since his days are determined, the number of his months is with You; You have appointed his limits, so that he cannot pass.”
I have read Paradise Restored and just over half of Days of Vengeance. Though I cannot agree with Chilton’s theonomy, his eschatology is admirable on the whole. I must agree with Dee Dee, however, in wishing that in some points of his epxosition he would leave out the unneededly complicated interpretations and get to the point. I am not entirely sure how much of his framework–interpritive mximalism/five-point covenant model–i would subscribe to. I have only read the pro sides for each of those argumens, and have not found critiques, especaially regarding the covenantal model.
Hi Kelby,
I have Sutton’s book on covenant structure and held it in high esteem. I actually ran it by a group of theologians and they chewed it up and spit it out. They really made mincemeat out of it and showed me a lot of problems with it. If you’re interested, I’ll ask them if I can share some of their comments.
btw - I am a theonomist. I do hold that the laws of God are Holy Just and Good. I do believe they refect God’s Holy character and are to be held as a standard because they reflect His character and reveal our character flaws. God executed judgment on the 10 commandments before they were ever given to Israel thus I hold they have always been part and parcel of His law. I was put off of theonomy for a while because of the dogma in promotion that I witnessed, but after debating a theonomist, I finally came to understand that I was placing my human limits on understanding it and reversed my position. I must say it’s a tough nut to crack.
Kelby,
Here is Bahnsen’s critique of the 5 part covenant structure and one of the items pointed out to me. Thought you or others may want to review it.
http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pb075.htm
Dorothy,
Thanks for the article, I’ll definitely read it. I’d love to hear what those theologians have to say as well. This plaace isn’t really right for discussing thenomy, but if you’re interested I’d enjoy chatting with you over email.
Hi Kelby,
I must say that I don’t agree with Bahnsen on some things, but he raises very good points about Sutton’s work.
As far as theonomy, I’d love to chat with you about that.
My email addy is 8thday@bellsouth.net
Feel free to write whenever you get the time.
As far as Chilton goes, I would agree with a lot of his commentary (incidentally, J.P. Holding seems to fall in line with a great deal.) Where I scratch my head and roll my eyes is when Chilton gets into structural details or takes things so far out that you don’t even understand him anymore (his interpretation of Revelation 12 is a good example.) I can recommend Paradise Restored, however, with far fewer reservations–it was my introduction to postmillennialism and swayed me almost by itself.
I read that critique by Bahsen a while back. He said that Revelation cannot follow multiple structures and that the harlot is Rome. He is wrong on both counts. Chilton does speculate at some points, but it’s not as far-fetched as some have made out.
The Covenant structure is crucial to understanding Revelation as a Covenant judgment. I’d like to hear what those theologians who spat it out said. I wrote a book tracing the structure (5 point in Word and heptamerous in practice) through the Bible and it plays out like clockwork.
The critiques of the covenant structure I’ve seen have been, at best, not very thorough and at worst very weak. I have not fully read That You May Prosper, so I don’t know if I fully understand the covenant structure. One specific point I have never understood (even reading Chilton’s commentary on this passage mutliple times) is how the Seven Seals can relate to “Ethical Stipulations”. The one question I do have, which Bahnsen poses is: what specifically are the “points”? Are they theological theses, or just sections of a document especially concerned with a specific idea?
Also, Mike–I’d love to read your book. As Dee Dee knows, i’m blind however and I’m guessing your book would not want to be available in electronic braille. Would you be willing to contact me privately to work out some kind of accessible copy?
Kelby
Thanks for your interest. You can contact me here:
http://www.bullartistry.com.au/contact.html
Hi Mike,
I’ve seen covenant structures from a 3 fold pattern to 7 and 8 fold. I do believe Jordan did some work in this area. For me, I think we can impose our presuppositions on scripture and often make them fit. Please don’t take offense to that - none is intended nor am I implying that you have done just that. I do understand Sutton’s 5 fold structure, but I do take exception to it today.
Coming out of the hyperpreterist movement, I’m far more cautious about adopting positions that are “new” and that’s the way Sutton’s work is touted. That just throws up warning flags for me now.
While you say that understanding the covenant structure is critical to understanding judgment, I disagree. I think an understanding of “sin” (violations of God’s laws) alone will suffice. I prefer to keep it simple.
If you want to discuss it further, you are quite welcome to contact me privately.
Hi Dorothy
No offense taken! I love discussing this stuff, and when everyone agrees it is boring.
What I meant about judgment was that if Revelation follows the same structure as Deuteronomy, it supports the premise that the harlot being judged is apostate Judaism rather than Rome.
I believe the structure can be traced right back to Genesis 1, and shows up all over the place, including the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord’s prayer, and the seven woes against the Pharisees. It also structures the books of the major prophets at many levels.
The reason the 5 point structure (as a document) plays out historically as 7 point is because the Law is given once, there is a ‘wilderness’ testing, and the Law is given again to a more mature individual or generation, as it was in Deuteronomy. So the central point becomes 3 points.
This all might sound new, but I found as I went through the Bible it was a matter of ticking the boxes. The structure doesn’t need to be imposed - it is already there. A New Covenant is always, in a sense, a New Creation.
That’s how I’m seeing it, anyhow.
Personally, I’d agree with Mike on most points here. The covenant structure helps understanding of Revelation a great del. However I don’t believe it is vital to seeing Babylon the Great as Jerusalem and Rome as the Beast.
Hi Mike,
Glad no offense was taken because none was intended. I do find covenant structure interesting. I’ve just come to question some of Sutton’s work there.
I would be interested in seeing how you apply it to the Lord’s prayer and the woes.
There are some interesting things to note in the giving of the law twice that you might like to see.
If you get time - drop it into my email. The address is up above.
Thanks
Duncan — a comment is ok, but we aren’t here to let you “teach” your hyperpreterism. You have plenty of sites for that.
Sorry Roderick,
This is not my site and I did not mean to offend. I thought it added to the discussion of the topic of Revelation and to be honest I do not think there is anything “hyper” in it (except a link to an article of mine on planet preterist, that I forgot to edit out). I think someone like Ken Gentry would agree with most, if not all, of it.
Duncan, the reason I have no desire to hear from you is because you write stuff like this:
You are not an honest participant when one place you behave one way & another place another. It is weaselly. This site is FULL of detailed, exegetical work. Interpretations of entire chapters of the the Bible & yet you weaselly hyperpreterists run off at the mouth like this.