Home | | E-Mail | | Contents | | V&FT
| Subj: [SGP] Gary North on David Chilton
before Chilton died Date: 98-11-22 15:31:50 EST From: kingdom@ksinc.net (Ward Fenley) Sender: SGPlist-owner@preterist.com Just thought you all might be interested in this. I personally had not actually seen the quote, but now I have. Gary North's response to Chilton's views: It is always sad when a defender of the faith abandons orthodoxy on any point. When he abandons it on the very point on which he had made his intellectual reputation, it is double sad. In Chilton's case, it is pathetic, for no matter what he writes on this topic from now on, his critics will be able to say, justifiably: "His heart attack disrupted his ability to think clearly. It distorted his judgment." From his public outburst against Vern Crisler -- for which he later repented, admitting that he cannot think straight these days -- until this self-burial of his pre-1994 writings, David Chilton has gone off the deep end. He has now become self-damaged goods delivered on the doorstep of Max King. ICE will continue to publish Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt Manipulators and The Great Tribulation. Dominion Press will continue to publish Days of Vengeance and Paradise Restored. I am happy with the existing editions of all of these books. They will not be revised for as long as these two publishers continue to publish these four books. For as long as there is money to plow back into publishing them, they will appear just as they are today. It is sad when a publisher must defend fine books against their author, but such is the case. I bought orthodoxy. I will not relinquish it in order to turn it over to a man who has literally lost his mind -- the mind of Christ. I would suggest that we not encourage his heresy by interacting with him on this matter on this or any other forum. It is now a matter of Church discipline, assuming that he is under any. I plan to hire Ken Gentry to write a refutation of heretical preterism. We should respond to these ideas, but not to Chilton personally. He is crippled now, and I do not think it is fair to beat him up in public. It is also unlikely to change what is left of his mind. We can and should pray for the restoration of his mind, but to debate with him publicly will almost certainly drive him deeper into this heresy. He will feel compelled to defend himself in public. Let him go in peace. It is not our God-given task to confront him at this point. That is for his local church to do. It is not as though he were some unknown church member who has stumbled into this heresy unknowingly. He is self-conscious, to the extent of a victim of a massive, brain-affecting heart attack can be self-conscious. He is not the man we used to know, as he has admitted here. That man died in 1994, he says. I agree. So, let us say now, David Chilton, RIP. Gary North Ward Fenley comments: Subj: Re: [SGP] Gary North on David Chilton before Chilton died Subj: Just one more claptrap heresy
Subj: RE: Just one more claptrap heresy In denying the Second Coming, you deny the Faith. |
I met David Chilton, author of 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:
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. |