O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
Comment by sam 11 hours ago
I would tell her to read Chilton's Paradise Restored. That book answers all her questions from a biblical perspective.
Comment by Norm 2 hours ago
Do we really want to buy everything that David Chilton believed when he wrote “Paradise Restored” in 1985?
Here is the book online link and some excerpts.
“Not only is it true that there will always be a faithful minority among Israel, but God’s word also teaches that someday a majority among ethnic Israel will be saved. The people of Israel, as a whole, will turn back to the faith of their fathers and will acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Their fall into apostasy is not permanent, says Paul. For just as their excommunication resulted in the salvation of the Gentiles, the salvation of the Gentiles will someday result in the restoration of Israel:”
“For Jesus specifically said that whoever believes in Him will be raised “at the Last Day.” That means that all Christians will be resurrected at the Last Day. Again, 1 Thessalonians 4 says that all believers will be raised at the Rapture.”
Also I’m not sure Chilton would agree with Sam’s renewed earth concept as he has the faithful going to Heaven at the end of his futurist world and says that paradise is now and not some post renewed earth that Sam postulates. Chilton appears here to be more in lockstep with those who oppose Sam’s view although he does let his “Dominion Rule” ideas grow as good futurist at this stage in his understanding.
THE NEW CREATION
“Well, finally we’ve gotten to a place in Revelation where everyone’s agreed, right? “The new heaven and earth” – that’s got to be literal, referring to eternity after the end of the world, right? Wrong. Or, to be absolutely precise, I should say: Yes and no. The truth is that the Bible tells us very little about heaven; just enough, in fact, to let us know we’re going there. But the primary concern of Scripture is the present life. Of course, the blessings of the final chapters of Revelation do refer to heaven. It is not really an “either/or” kind of an issue. But what is important is that these things are true now. Heaven is a continuation and perfection of what is true of the Church in this life. We are not simply to look forward to these blessings in an eternity to come, but to enjoy them and rejoice in them here and now. John was telling the early Church of present realities, of blessings that existed already and would be on the increase as the gospel extended and renewed the earth.” Emphasis mine
“This cannot be speaking of heaven, or of a time after the end of the world; for in this “new heaven and earth” there is still death (at a very advanced age – “the lifetime of a tree”), people are building, planting, working, and having children. We could spend the rest of this chapter examining the implications of this passage in Isaiah, but the only point I will make here is that it is clearly a statement about this age, before the end of the world, and shows what future generations can expect as the gospel permeates the world, restores the earth to Paradise, and brings to fruition the goals of the Kingdom.”
Again Chilton seems to part ways with Sam in His Heaven now application contrasted to Sam’s renewed earth at the end.
“Ultimately, this will be fulfilled in heaven to the utmost extent. But we must recognize that it is true already. God has wiped away our tears. The proof of this is the obvious difference between Christian and pagan funerals: we grieve, but not as those who have no hope (1 Thess. 4:13 ). God has taken away the sting of death (1 Cor. 15:55-58 ). And most striking is the following phrase: “The first things have passed away. . . . Behold, I am making all things new.” Where have we read that before? It comes from 2 Corinthians 5:17 : “Therefore, if any man is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.” Is this true now? Of course!”
Comment by sam 2 hours ago
Your ability to completely fail to understand authors is amazing. First, Chilton is a POSMILLENNIALIST. The earth is TRANSFORMED at the end of history. Second, on page 223 he lists his arguments for the book. See number 5? "EARTH IS RESTORED AS A WHOLE" - which he argued for in chapters 3-7! The book itself is called PARADISE RESTORED. Where is it restored, Norm? EARTH! It's the argument of his entire book! Have you read it? He is using the "expanding/enlarging" imagery. The first "expanse" was given to Adam: be fruitful and multiply. How many kids could they have, and their kids, before the Garden was full? The Garden GROWS (growth imagery). This expanding the tent pegs image is found in Ezekiel and Isaiah, and Paul picks it up in Galatians, and Jesus uses it in his parables.....Norm....read the book, buddy, before you go off making statements about something you don't know.
Comment by Edward W. Goodie 1 hour ago
Since when is quoting the author called an inability to understand them?
Comment by Norm 1 hour ago
You need to pay closer attention to what I wrote and posted.
I said ... "Chilton appears here to be more in lockstep with those who oppose Sam’s view although he does let his “Dominion Rule” ideas grow as good futurist at this stage in his understanding.
Did you somehow miss his point that the earth ends and everyone resides in Heaven? When did he change to your view that the faithful all end up here back on earth at its end? Or have you changed your view again?
Sam you obviously like to selectively read Chilton yourself.
You are essentially arguing with Chilton as it's obvious from the quotes above that he is not posturing the same ideas that you are. Is there some similarities yes but I'll let his quotes speak for themself.
Comment by sam 46 minutes ago
Are you for real? Are you actually saying chilton denied a transformed earth? I am not "selectively" reading chilton.....you are. I am reading ALL of what he said. ALL of it. And, he is emphatic on his point. Read the chapters, Norm, 3-7......
Comment by Wanda Short 43 minutes ago
Thanks for this enlightening discussion gentlemen! I would recommend just a tad bit more testosterone thrown around would really help your points hit home for me. Just a thought. Blessings.
Comment by Micah Martin 34 minutes ago
Quoting Chilton, especially "Paradise Restored", is always going to be a tough exercise. He clearly understood and admitted that his embracing of full-preterism would cause him to have to re-examine his old conclusions. He also admitted that certain things he wrote in "Paradise Restored" should have pushed him over to full-preterism much earlier. Unfortunately, he passed away at a relatively young age. I really wish he would have had more time though because he was a great example of someone seeking the Truth of the Bible no matter where it lead or what consequences it brought. I display his books proudly on my bookshelf because he does lay out the framework for full-preterism in "Paradise Restored" you just have to ignore the inconsistencies that he later came to reject. It would have been nice if he had lived long enough to write a part two.
He was instrumental in my journey, and will always hold a special place in my heart.
It saddens me that other partial preterist, like James Jordan, Gentry and DeMar are holding out so long. Chilton would have enjoyed the time they have to work through the ramifications of full-preterism. Unfortunately, the longer they hold out, the less time they will have to re-work their previous writings. In the end, there may be many regrets. Time marches on and waits for no man.
Comment by sam 22 minutes ago
Please read my recent article on Chilton. He didn't "come out" as much as FP tout him as doing. In fact, he sounds a whole lot like me:
Comment by Norm 13 minutes ago
I have stated now for the third time that Chilton has similarites with you and has a "growing" to the kingdom. Yet you are still ignoring my main point that he also has the faithful in Heaven post mortem and at the end of the world which is how he differs from you on your postulation if I understand you correctly, which I may indeed not.
Are you then agreeing with Chilton as he postulates that the earth does end and there is no paradise on earth after this ending? He has earth becoming paradise before it ends and which he says is happening now. I know he is presenting "some" of what you have started agreeing with on the future transformation of paradise on Earth and both of you have an ending as well. However he has us ultimately in Heaven while it seems that you have us brought back to the fuller even more restored Earth after the end of procreation. Is that about right for you Sam? Maybe it would help if you outlined your agreements with Chilton and if you have any disagreements. However recognize that he wrote this in 1985 when he was still strongly in the futurist camp. Surely you have some disagreements with some of his thoughts that are clearly futurist?
From what I understand is that "Chilton came to reject Dominion Theology and stated so explicity at the 1997 OKC conference". However we just do not know how much of the Postmil view he abandoned as he just didn't have time.
You said: "From what I understand is that "Chilton came to reject Dominion Theology and stated so explicity at the 1997 OKC conference".
I got the same impression from listening to the audio. Now here is something interesting to ponder.
American Vision is basically a "Dominion Theology or Theonomic" organization. It works well with the Postmillennial eschatology of Gentry, North and DeMar. I don't have to tell you how many books DeMar has written on the subject (not to mention how many he has helped publish.)
I am sure DeMar realizes that the entire "Dominion" paradigm must be re-evaluated if full-preterism is true. It was one of the first things I left once I realized that "heaven and earth" (and therefore the law) had passed away. (I won't worry about the minutia details of that argument but suffice to say, every "theonomist" I know uses that verse to preach their dominion theology.) Nonetheless, DeMar keeps creeping closer and closer to FP.
Now, a few years ago, Joel McDurmon joined AV. Joel is married to Gary Norths daughter! (North himself is married to Rushdoony's granddaughter). It is no wonder AV has gone decidedly back towards to theonomic direction since Joel came on board.
DeMar is getting ready to "retire" and it looks like Joel is his groomed replacement. Now put yourself in DeMar's shoes, especially knowing how North treated Chilton.
My bet is that as DeMar steps back, eschatology will start to take more and more of a back seat to the dominionism of North and his son-in-law. (IMO this is already happening.) Postmill eschatology will only be used when necessary to prop up the theonomic arguments. DeMar might come to the FP position privately sometime, but I think he knows very well the "bomb" that would be set off if he comes out publicly.
One more note. North is also a rabid YEC proponent (as is Gentry). IMO AV has also made a concerted shift from "allowing debate" on the issue (a few years ago) to "nothing but YEC". I think this also is a shift brought on by Mr. McDurmon.
None of these guys are so ignorant as to not know the implications of FP on YEC, Theonomy and other "Reformed" beliefs. Chilton admitted it right away on something that he preached and wrote about most of his career. We all know how he was treated by his "brothers in Christ".
It reminds me of a little movie I watched a long time ago... I think it was called "The Godfather"!
A couple of things to add.
Chilton and Bahnsen fought like cats and dogs in the early days. Bahnsen did not agree with Chilton's hermeneutic approach (or Jordan's). I saw someone on another site claiming that he held both Chilton's and Bahnsen's eschatology. Problem. Chilton and Bahnsen disagreed, eschatologically. Bahnsen saw "Rome" as the context for Revelation, and Chilton saw "Jerusalem" as the context for Revelation. Big difference. Some days I just shake my head...
Gary North, I believe, married Rushdoony's daughter, not grand-daughter.
I, too, have sensed a recent shift at American Vision with the presence of Joel McDurmon. It remains to be seen, I think, how this will turn out. One of the biggest challenges for organizations like AV is handing leadership from one generation to the next.
Tim and Micah,
Rich asked the question about Chilton’s rejecting Dominion Theology at RCM and Sam gave the answer that Chilton rejected “strong” Reconstructionism as he was a soft reconstructionist like DeMar. Now does Sam infer that Chilton when he announced his full Preterism that he left his “soft” reconstructionism or is Sam inferring that he left “strong” reconstructionism and became a “soft” one because of his new full Preterism? Does Chilton’s books indicate whether he was “soft” or “strong”?
Either way it looks like Chilton rejected some form of Dominion Theology; or isn’t it pretty well based upon Postmillennialism to a large degree with the resurrection at the end? How would an AD70 resurrection affect such ideas of either strong or soft Reconstructionist?
§ Chilton rejected "strong" Reconstructionism. Like Gary DeMar, he is a "soft" reconstructionist.
I think it is very interesting that in emails to Don Preston and Ed Stevens that Chilton flat out states that his books contradict themselves. He says that he wrote things that were full Preterist but then turned around and contradicted them in another area of the book. If Sam Frost is going to appropriate Chilton then he needs to realize that Chilton had already stated that they were contradictory and Sam is standing on ever shifting sand to say he knows what and how Chilton would have straightened out the mess of inconsistency that was in his books.
It is so apparent that Chilton was in the beginning stages of sorting this stuff out that it is incredulous that Sam Frost would try to appropriate Chilton’s books as images of his. How can this be when Chilton says that there are incorrect things in his books related to a postmillennial position that he now realized was wrong. Sam is trying to interpret Chilton’s work to make it fit his by telling us what Chilton actually believed. Sam doesn’t have a clue of where Chilton was going to end up and needs to drop this approach.
Here is the link to the emails that I pulled these excerpts from.
CHILTON EMAILS PRESTON
[Don P I have been corresponding with some Seminary students. They had recently read your Paradise Restored. Shortly thereafter they had read some of my materials, my 2 Peter 3 book, and were interested in understanding more about the full preterist view as opposed to the postmillennial preterist view. In our exchange I told them that you were now a full preterist. Yesterday they wrote back, clearly in shock, requesting some confirmation of what I had told them. They wanted to know if you had written anything from the full preterist perspective yet, or if you had made any "official announcement" to that effect. l told them that all I had to go on was what you had told me, but that I would ask you if it was okay to give them your e-mail address so that they could contact you and ask you for themselves. Would that be okay with you? Just let me know as soon as possible.
[David C] Yes, that would be fine. I am working a bit on a little book on 2 Peter, and the substance of that was published in two articles for last September and October issues of Gary Demar's "Biblical Worldview" magazine; but actually already in "Days of Vengeance" (pp. 537-45), in my discussion of Rev. 21:1, I take an almost complete "complete-preterist" position. Tell them I've realized "Days of Vengeance" contradicts itself: compare my overall OVERVIEW (on p. 45 of the Introduction) with the actual commentary itself! According to the Overview, Parts One and Two of Revelation correspond to each other; yet I place the "Last Judgment" of Chapter 11 in A.D. 70, while I place the one in chapter 20 sometime possibly thousands of years in our future! As another example, read "Paradise Restored," pp. 103-05. (below). As a whole, that is virtually a complete expression of the Full Preterist position! (If someone had pointed that out to me in 1985, I don't know what I would've done!) All of Chapter 13 ("The Last Days") should have pushed me into Full Preterism all by myself! I don't know why it didn't!
CHILTON EMAILS STEVENS
You said: Well, I'd be interested in your thoughts on the resurrection thing. If you want to send us an article on preterism I'd be happy to receive it....Maybe you could address the resurrection problem from a consistent preterist position.
I'll start working on one, as soon as I finish preparing for a Preterist Conference later this month. And I wouldn't worry about Chalcedon copying a Preterist article - they've already (a few months ago) pronounced it heresy! This is a bit embarrassing for me, considering that I took the same position in Paradise Restored and Days Of Vengeance, but, as Alexander Pope said: "A man should never be ashamed to own he has been in the wrong, which is but saying, in other words, that he is wiser today than he was yesterday!"
God bless you, and thank you for not dropping me off a cliff!
Here is Wright's own words on the post mortem existence before the restored earth of his... " Wright: We know that we will be with God and with Christ, resting and being refreshed. Paul writes that it will be conscious, but compared with being bodily alive, it will be like being asleep.
Now about this rebuking?
Again I’ll let Chilton’s words speak first.
“For Jesus specifically said that whoever believes in Him will be raised “at the Last Day.” That means that all Christians will be resurrected at the Last Day. Again, 1 Thessalonians 4 says that all believers will be raised at the Rapture.”
We could spend the rest of this chapter examining the implications of this passage in Isaiah, but the only point I will make here is that it is clearly a statement about this age, before the end of the world, and shows what future generations can expect as the gospel permeates the world, restores the earth to Paradise, and brings to fruition the goals of the Kingdom.”
25. Before the Second Coming of Christ, the vast majority of Jews and Gentiles will be converted to the Christian faith. (14)
26. All of Christ’s enemies are gradually being subdued under His reign from heaven. He will remain in heaven until all enemies have been defeated. The last enemy, Death, will be destroyed when He returns. (16)
27. Jesus Christ will return on the Last Day, when the Resurrection and the Last Judgment will take place. (16)
28. The Rapture and the Second Coming will occur together. (16)
36. The “Millennium” is the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, which He established at His First Advent.
38. The “thousand years” of Revelation 20 is symbolic for a vast number of years – most likely many thousands. (22, 24)
THE CONSUMMATION OF THE KINGDOM
We can now begin to draw some very significant overall conclusions from our study so far. As we saw in the previous chapter, the Last Day is a synonym for the Last Judgment, at the end of the world. Moreover, Jesus declared that those who believe in Him will be resurrected at the Last Day (John 6:39-40, 44, 54). This means that Judgment Day is also Resurrection Day; both occur together, at the close of history. Emphasis mine
Now of course we know before Chilton acknowledged full Preterism that he believed in a postmillennial system in which everything grows and then comes the end of the world when all the faithful will be raptured. I’m assuming he dropped these above ideas about a rapture found in his book when he became full Preterist. We don’t have a lot of details as his life ended soon after. However it’s abundantly clear that his postmillennialism partial Preterism described in his book is clearly out of step with full Preterism.
I'll give this the ole college try, one more time. So, in Chilton's own words (from Days of Vengence):
1. "This City is the New Jerusalem, described in detail in [Rev] 21:9-22:5. The significance of this should not be missed: The City exists during the Millennium (i.e. the period between the First and Second Advents of Christ), which means that the "new heaven and new earth" ([Rev] 21:1) are a present as well as a future reality. The New Creation will exist in consummate form after the Final judgment, but it exists, definitively and progressively, in the present age (2 Cor. 5:17)." page 525
note: Chilton distinguishes between the eschatological consummation of the renewed earth AFTER the rapture, resurrection and judgment at Jesus Christ's second coming on that Last Day (after the millenium) and the 'this present age' (which began in AD70) of the "difinitively and progressive" nature of the kingdom rule.
2. "St. John uses it here in order to underscore the picture of cosmic resurrection and regeneration;" pge 539
3. "Adams task of "heavenizing" the earth has been completed, established on an entirely new basis in the work of Christ. Earth's original uninhabitable condition of deep-and-darkness has been utterly done away with; There is no longer any Sea [emphasis Chilton's] or Abyss. There is heaven and earth, but no "under-the-earth," the abode of Leviathon. What St. John reveals to us is the eschatological outcome of the comprehensive, cosmic reconciliation celebrated by St. Paul: [in Col. 1:19-20)." page 538
4. "St. John next sees, as the central aspect of this New Creation, the Holy City, New Jerusalem. [emphasis Chilton's] Again we must remember that Jesus Christ has accomplished one salvation, one New Creation, with definitive, progressive, and consummative aspects. The final reality of the eschatological New Creation is also the present reality of the defnitive-progressive New Creation. No aspect of this salvation should be emphasized to the exclusion or undue minimization of the others. The New Testament teaches that, with Old Jerusalem about to be excommunicated and executed for her violation of the covenant, Christians have become citizens and heirs of the New Jerusalem, the City whose origin is in heaven, which comes down out of heaven from God. [emphasis Chilton's]... The New Testament then goes on to say; All this and heaven too! The New Creation is not only a state established definitvely by Christ, and progressively unfolding now; someday it will be established finally, in consummate, absolute perfection!" page 545
5. "All these blessing have come because the first things have passed away. And He who sits on the Throne said: Behold, I am making all things new. (emphasis Chilton's) Here is another connection to the teaching of St. Paul: "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, there is a New Creation' the old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new" (2 Cor. 5:17). Again, of course, we are confronted with the fact that this is true now, as well as on the Last Day. The only essential difference between the subjects of 2 Corinthians 5 and Revelation 21 is that St. Paul is speaking of the redeemed individual, while St. John is speaking of the redeemed community. (emphasis Chilton's) Both the individual and the community are recreated, renewed, and restored to Paradise in salvation, and this cosmic restoration has already begun. St. John sees that what has begun in seemingly (to the eyes of the first century) isolated instances is really the wave of the future. The New Creation will fill the earth; the whole creation will be renewed. page 547
6. "No form of existence can withstand the renovating power of God's Spirit. There is no rational element that many not be sanctified; no sphere of natural life that may not be glorified. The creature, in the widest extent of the word, is earnestly waiting for the manifestation of the sons of God, and sighing after the same glorious deliverance. The whole creation aims toward redemption; and Christ is the second Adam, the new universal man, not simply in a religious but also in an absolute sense. page 548
7. Paradise is not, therefore, only "restored"; it is consummated, its every implication brought to complete fruition and fulfillment. In Revelation we see Man redeemed, brought back to the Mountain, sustained by the River and the Tree of Life, regaining his lost dominion and ruling as a priest-king over the earth. This is our privilege and heritage now, definitively and progressively, in this age; and it will be ours fully in the age to come. page 567
8. This vision of the Church's glorious future, earthly and heavenly, mends the fabric that was torn in Genesis. page 569
9. Again we must remember that the New Covenant age is regarded in Scripture as definitively and progressively an era of Light, in contrast to the relative Darkness of the pre-Messianic times. In the absolute and ultimate sense, the Light will come only at the end of the world, at the Second Coming of Christ. page 572 (note: remember, the "end of the world" is the end of the millennium in Chilton's book)
10. In his concluding comment on the restoration of Paradise, St. John tells us that the royal priesthood shall reign, not just for a "millennium," but forever and ever: "The reign of the thousand years (20:4-6) is but the beginning of a regal life and felicity which are to continue through all aeons to come. And so the kingdom of the saints of the Most High will be most truley, as Daniel wrote, 'an everlasting kingdom' (Dan. 7:27). This is the 'eternal life' of Matthew 25:46, just as the second death, the lake of fire, is the 'eternal punishment' into which the 'cursed' go away." (Milton Terry, Biblical Apocalyptics: A Study of the Most Notable Revelations of God and of Christ in the Canonical Scriptures - page 471.) page 573
11. The "Millennium" is Christ's Kingdom, which began at the Resurrection/Ascension and continues unil the end of the world (pp.494-98, 508-19). The "new heaven and new earth" is a picture of salvation: brought in definitively by the finished work of Christ, developing progressively throughout the present age, and coming finally, in absolute fullness, at the consummation of all things (pp. 535-45). page 583
It’s amazing to me that different people can read the same words and come to completely different conclusion. Everything you have quoted here falls in line perfectly with how I perceive Chilton in that he sees the inauguration of the Heavens and Earth started with Christ and continue to grow until the fullness has been completed when there will be rapture and the end of the physical world. What has been established and begin on earth merges fully with Heaven at this point of Rapture. Chilton says we don’t know much about Heaven because the bible doesn’t say much about it.
So in conclusion you are reading your own presuppositions into Chilton’s work and simply don’t know how to draw the conclusion he was pointing out and don’t know how to keep his explanations in context. You’re mixing your own presupposition context by proof texting out of Chilton’s overall context. You simply aren’t keeping his context in order.
I want you to find where Chilton explicitly states that at the Rapture and end of the world at the last day that this Rapture brings us back to paradise or heaven on earth and not in Heaven. I know he talks about it before when it becomes consummated but then it’s the end. I have already demonstrated this with his own words half a dozen times, yet you keep coming back with his language speaking to the growing fullness until the consummated time.
Of course I don’t buy Chilton’s postmillennialism but it’s pretty clear what he is presenting. Well at least it is to me. Here is his own words again which supports my understanding and not yours.
“Paradise Restored” page 148 below
The Biblical doctrine of the Second Coming is relatively uncomplicated and straightforward. We can summarize our findings from the last several chapters as follows:
1. The reign of Jesus Christ began at His Resurrection and Ascension, as the prophets had promised. His Kingdom (’the Millennium”) is now in force and will continue until He is universally acknowledged as Lord. By means of the gospel, His people are extending His rule over the face of the earth, until all nations are disciple and Paradise comes to its most complete earthly fulfillment.
2. On the Last Day, at the end of the world, Jesus Christ will return to resurrect all men for the Judgment, both the righteous and the wicked. Those Christians who are still living at the Second Coming will be raptured to join the Lord and the resurrected saints in the Glory-Cloud, where they will be transformed, fully restored into the image of God.
3. The doctrine that Christ’s Kingdom will begin only after His Second Coming is utterly contradicted by Holy Scripture. The Bible teaches that the Second Coming of Christ, coinciding with the Rapture and the Resurrection, will take place at the end of the Millennium, when history is sealed at the Judgment. Until then, Christ and His people are marching forth from strength to strength, from victory to victory. We shall overcome.
Finally I don’t know how Chilton can be any clearer than in this section. Page 203
THE NEW CREATION
Well, finally we’ve gotten to a place in Revelation where everyone’s agreed, right? “The new heaven and earth” – that’s got to be literal, referring to eternity after the end of the world, right? Wrong. Or, to be absolutely precise, I should say: Yes and no. The truth is that the Bible tells us very little about heaven; just enough, in fact, to let us know we’re going there. But the primary concern of Scripture is the present life. Of course, the blessings of the final chapters of Revelation do refer to heaven. It is not really an “either/or” kind of an issue. But what is important is that these things are true now. Heaven is a continuation and perfection of what is true of the Church in this life. We are not simply to look forward to these blessings in an eternity to come, but to enjoy them and rejoice in them here and now.
Chilton explicitly speaks of our existence in Heaven after the resurrection but it is a continuation of the beginning of the start of the Heavens on earth begun by Christ. Again this is not my ideas but is straight out of the book putting in context what you have pulled out of context to apply something of your own interpretation. Sharon you and Sam and other Reformed Postmillennialist can believe what you want but don’t try to tell me that Chilton is saying something that he isn’t. Let Chilton’s old work rest in peace and remember he refuted his Dominion Theology for a short time before his death.