Did He Really Write This?

Okay, of the many articles written on PretBlog outlining the corrupt teaching and character of hyperpreterist Samuel Frost, what I’m about to share tops them all…and the article ISN’T written by me, Dee Dee, PaulT or any other PretBlog author.  It is written by Sam Frost himself.  Frost is responding to an article by Dr. Kenneth Talbot (see here).  It is important not so much that the reader first read Talbot’s article, although it is a very well written article.  But it is important for the reader to keep in mind what has been claimed about Frost.  The claim about Frost is that he is an egotistical panderer always seeking validation and legitimacy.  With that in mind, I present Frost’s response in indentation with my commentary without indentation.

I was alerted today to a new website created by Dr. Kenneth Talbot ot Whitefield Theological Seminary (my alma mater – source: http://theologyexplained.ning.com/). Finally, the respective men seen on the front of this site means that the Preterist view is being taken seriously. After all, these men, valuable as their time is, would not erect a website which has as its first article an argument against Preterism. One could not imagine spending this amount of time on something “flaky” or so “fragmented” (think, David Koresh, Jim Jones), if it were not important. This is a good thing.

Does it really mean that Hyperpreterism is “being taken seriously” or that it has reached a level where it is causing enough discord that these men are doing something about it?  I bet the Arians thought their anti-trinitarianism was “being taken seriously” when an entire council was called to deal with it and we see where that got them.

Perhaps these men are spending this amount of time on refuting hyperpreterism exactly because it is “flaky” and yet is affecting the Church in the same way various heresies throughout history have done.  Ever thought of that Mr. Frost or are you too busy feeling like you’re a big boy now?

Since I have worked for over ten years with Dr. Talbot, and received two Masters degrees from that institution, I welcome his article. Preterists have longed for men of more educated caliber to respond with more than just a book. In fact, several books have been written against Preterism. Jay Adams, Kenneth Gentry, C. Jonathin Seraiah, Kieth Mathison, etc., have all written lengthy responses. These have been met, too.

Yes, yes Mr. Frost yet again tell us allllllll about how degreed you are.  As for the hyperpreterists “meeting” the responses — really?  You mean the 231 page book thrown together 5 years after the fact?  You mean the one you weaseled your way to be a part of after you were thrown off the first team of writers and you abandoned the second team because they weren’t getting it done fast enough?  Sam, get over yourself “dude”.

What we have not heard are responses back. There has been a lull of sorts over the last few years. What we have seen is a vitriolic group of people, a small band, that has largely not interacted with the exegetical arguments of Preterism, but with repetitive ad hominem ones. It appears that they are more interested with our personal lives. One website has devoted several articles about yours truly on a weekly basis (I won’t mention them, because I cannot endorse them in any way, shape, or manner – it’s that embarrassing).

The response has ALREADY been given — it is 2000 years of UNITED historic Christian interpretation on eschatology. Something you hyperpreterists just keep forgetting.  What is “vitriolic” is all coming from you hyperpreterists who claim your critics need to be on medication and that we’re mentally unstable.  I’d say that is pretty much a REAL ad hominem.  As for interest in your personal lives, no but we are interested in citing when you lie and you hyperpreterists do so often.  Character means something and when a person’s character is corrupt, you can bet what they are saying is corrupt as well.  And it is a nice touch how you can’t mention the site that actually takes you to task Frost — sort of like how Obama tries to dismiss FoxNews as “embarrassing”.  How liberal of you.

With the book, When Shall These Things Be?, Preterism would have thought to have been finally quelled. As a person recognized as a “leader” (a title I don’t take), and as one that has spoke at all the major conferences for over seven years, and as one that has written quite a bit on the subject matter, I consider myself qualified to respond to my one time mentor.

No, heresy doesn’t go away that quickly Mr. Frost, believe it or not there are STILL Arians running around not to mention millions of Mormons.  Heresy dupes people for a long, long time and it is very difficult for a person to leave unless they are humbled.  However, your next sentence shows that’s not going to happen with you any time soon.  As you tell us how many conferences where you’ve spoken and how much you’ve written and how qualified you are.  Yet you complain that PretBlog focuses on you?  Um…

First, Talbot demonstrates that we, not him, recognized the “imcompatibility” of certain Reformed doctrines within a Preterist framework. We, however, do not illogically insist that because “some” things need revision, “all” things need revision. This is, as Clark would say, “just bad logic”. What Talbot wants to do at the opening of us his paper is an old technique: divide and conquer.

Of “certain Reformed doctrines”???  Sam you said it is not possible to be truly Reformed and a “Full Preterist” — that is MORE than just “certain Reformed doctrines”.  When are you going to EVER be honest man?  Actually the 19th century theologian, Samuel Miller said about heresies:

When heresy rises in an evangelical body, it is never frank and open. It always begins by skulking, and assuming a disguise. Its advocates, when together, boast of great improvements, and congratulate one another on having gone greatly beyond the “old dead orthodoxy,” and on having left behind many of its antiquated errors: but when taxed with deviations from the received faith, they complain of the unreasonableness of their accusers, as they “differ from it only in words.” This has been the standing course of errorists ever since the apostolic age. They are almost never honest and candid as a party, until they gain strength enough to be sure of some degree of popularity.

I’d say he was right on the mark almost word for word on how Samuel the heretic behaves – “We’re just changing a few things, only a few words, otherwise we’re orthodox” – riiiiiiiiiiiight.

Talbot, at this point, draws on four sources: Dr. Birks, L. Siegle, Virgil Vaduva, and me. L. Siegle, who is a very, close personal companion of mine, and Vaduva (another dear friend and brother), come more out of the Church of Christ background. There is a long history already there between Calvinism and Arminianism quite apart from Preteristic studies. Campbell came to reject Calvinism, as anyone familiar with the history of Church of Christ knows.

Yes, yes Sam we all know how “personal” you are with all these guys — everyone is your buddy.  You even had to tell us how you once shared a hotel room with Gary DeMar (audio source).  Always seeking legitimacy aren’t you?  Now, maybe you should have explained why hyperpreterism affected the CoC so much and why hyperpreterism’s main advocates STILL come mainly from the CoC — it’s the dirty little secret within the movement isn’t it?

The other sources, me and Dr. Birks, come from a Reformed background. We came through the postmillennial school (lead by Dr. Gentry, James Jordan, David, Chilton and Gary DeMar). They lost one of their own to Preterism when Chilton announced publically that he was a full Preterist. It hits that close to home.

Yes, yes more about “me” = Sam Frost, “look at me! look at me!” We hear you, don’t worry.  Actually Sam you DON’T come from a “Reformed background”.  You were a Charismatic first and foremost long before you adopted anything resembling Reformed.  And why are you using the word “Preterism” without any qualifier? Are you saying there is no distinction between the heretical kind and the orthodox kind?  How Vaduvan of you.

Jordan, also, who writes so close to our own view, but is somehow still able to remain within “orthodox” standings, is a huge influence on Preterist thought. Romans 9-11, for example, was fulfilled in A.D. 70. His student, Peter Leithart, wrote a wonderful commentary on II Peter, arguing persausively that II Peter 3 was fulfilled in A.D. 70.

Poor James Jordan, you hyperpreterists have been throwing around his name for years as if he supports you.  I finally emailed him and asked him directly.  Here is what he said:

“Yes, these guys are heretics in your definition [according to Romans 16:17-18], and I probably should not have backed down, but it’s all a matter of context. What I think makes them heretical, in a broad sense, is that they are really only interested in this issue”. (James B. Jordan — email)

As you can see, Jordan ISN’T so friendly to the hypers as they think.

One may note, though, that even these two are ousted on their doctrine of justification by faith, following more N.T. Wright, who has been severely condemned as a heretic by many prominent Reformed theologians. See what I am doing here? Divide and conquer. Anyone can do it.

Actually no Mr. Frost, the reason hyperpreterism is “ousted” is because it is NOTHING like ANY KIND of historic Christian interpretation.  It is outside EVERYTHING that has ever been considered Christian.  You “divide and conquer” yourselves the moment you accept hyperpreterism.  Dr. Talbot did a good job in his article, using your own words in showing why you cannot be accepted within the Christian community.

With both of these “camps” within Preterism, the arguments about “freewill”, “determinism”, “universalism”, “postmodernism”, “heresy,” “creeds”, etc., etc. are bound to come up, much like the[y] do (and have) within the history of Church before Preterism began to make its case. With such a diversified group coming in to Preterism, I wrote almost a decade ago that schisms are naturally going to occur as they do within any movement, or have within Christendom at large.

Wow! You are so keen Mr. Frost!  You predicted the fragmentation of the hyperpreterist movement more than a decade ago???  Amazing.  I’d just thought it was going to fragment because it’s based on the premise that 2000 years of Christianity has basically been in gross error and it has fallen to you arrogant individualists to piece together things from “implication” as your dear personal friend Larry has admitted.  The “schisms” you see within Christianity are just that, they are not wholesale abandonment of Christianity as is the case with hyperpreterism.

In other words, the same kind of “you are all fragmented” argument is used by the Atheists against Christianity. The argument is a fallacy. The same argument was used against the Reformers (citing Vincent of Lerins, quod ubique…semper…ab omnibus creditum est), to which they responded: that never existed (and then proceeded to cite the conflicting doctrine, popes, and councils – council against council, pope against pope).

No, that WASN’T what the Reformers were arguing against.  The Reformers did NOT see a discontinuity as you are trying to claim. They cited conflicting popes and councils to make an argument against Papalism and apostolic succession.  The Reformers, unlike your hyperpreterist progenitors, the CoC did NOT believe the Church had failed and needed to be “restored” (see link).  When are you hyperpreterists going to stop bastardizing history to promote your heresy?

The magistrates against Luther used the fragmentation of the Reformation as an argument against it (and still do, with the force of 20,000 Protestant denominations and counting – how is that “unity”?).

Again, why are YOU using a fallacy?  The unity that the Papists claimed was unity around the pope.  There is a reason the Reformed folks often used the term “Papists” when referring to their opponents — the disagreement was NOT about whether there was continuity and unity, but unity around what?  You hyperpreterists come along and reject ALL of historic Christianity and want to replace it with something different.  The Reformers were merely rejecting Papalism.  The Reformers would often cite the Church Fathers and historic doctrines along with Scripture, to show that it was they, not the Papists who were upholding historic Christianity.  You hyperpreterists CAN’T do that because your beliefs are foreign to Christianity.

The fact of the matter is, Vaduva and Frost appear at one another’s conferences for lectures. We display a great unity within the diversity that we recognize is there. No one of us wants to straight-jacket the fulfilled “blessed hope” of Jesus into “Reformed only” or “Arminianist only” or the like. In that, there is a greater opening for divergent views that can come under the umbrella of Preterism. Straightjacketed “Reformed only” leads to a closed mentality. It leads to a “sign here” mentality. When Vaduva was arguing these things, the context of the history of Preterism needs to be noted.

Well, sounds more like syncretism to me, after all Frost is the one who for many years proudly described himself as an “ecumenicist” and even went around saying the Pope and Mormons are his Christian brothers.  Of course you share a stage with Vaduva — he gave you your start on the Internet, he published one of your books free of charge (source — truth voice is Vaduva’s brand).  You even once admitted that you couldn’t “bite the generous hand” of Vaduva — I’ll quote it:

“Virgil [and others] have never wronged me in any way, and have gone out of their ways to help me in many, many situations.  One does not just come back and bite the generous hand and cut them off.” — Frost admitting he must pander to Vaduva (source)

So, YES indeed the HISTORY and context of the hyperpreterist movement and your position within it needs to be noted Mr. Frost.  You have a history of pandering and weaseling and yet want to portray yourself as stalwart.  I come with sourced FACTS.  What do you come with Mr. Frost?

There was a very strong contingent within Preterism that was “Reformed.” They reacted very strongly against Vaduva and the Church of Christ element. I did not go that route, even though I maintained the absolute determinist nature of God. Vaduva, feeling the pinch here, came out against such straight-jacketing mentalities. It was with this “Calvinist” mentality that sets the context for his quotes used by Talbot. I know. I was in the middle of it.

No, this is absolutely false.  You weren’t in the “middle of it” you were MIA.  You were silent because it might mess up your opportunities of speaking at all those conferences and having your books published by Vaduva and being named the Chief Editor of the now defunct hyperpreterist Bible project (source).  Frost, you were always the token “Calvinist” on PlanetPreterist, the “dancing bear”.  It was Vaduva that attacked the Reformed faith and only AFTER that did some of us respond…but not you.  You were NOT “in the middle of it” — you were hiding behind Virgil “generous hand”.  (source).

What Talbot wants the reader to see, though, is “disunity.” “Fragmentation.” The problem here, though, is that in terms of philosophy, doctrinal concerns, etc., there is a diverse range of opinions. However, these same “groupings” within Preterism have astonishingly remained committed to fostering a love for “one another” in spite of our differences. We all still interact together and support each other in other areas where we do agree. In other words, our agreement is much stronger than our disagreements. Talbot wants the reader to think that we have fragmented in such a way that we no longer speak with one another, or that we do not encourage one another, or that we show each other the door out.

Really?  Then you might want to let your buddies know that they are supposed to remain committed to each other — Take a look at this link on Frost’s own hyperpreterist community site where his buddies attack another faction of the movement.  Both factions exchange barbs and claim the other are false “full preterists” whereas they claim they are the “true preterists”.  Ironically enough, I actually agree with the other faction — Frost’s faction is inconsistent, as Talbot points out in his article.
Eventually the whole movement will either implode under the weight of every individual trying to be the one who brings the next new thing or one of the factions will dominate and be considered the true representatives.  For example, when we speak of Mormonism or JWs or Islam, we must realize that at the founding of those groups, there was fragmentation which continues to this day.  Whereas with Christianity, Gnosticism which competed with early Christianity has been soundly put to rest.

In all of my years, in all of the conferences, I have yet to see this done. It was attempted, with one of Dr. Talbot’s fellow writers on Preterist Blog, Roderick Edwards. But, most rejected such a move, and today, that move to erect a Preterist denomination, excluding other Preterists because they are not “this” or “that” has failed. With Edwards out of the mix, the desire to exercise the fruits of the Spirit dominates the movement as a whole so that sharp disagreements can be hashed out and debated, yet the hand of a united Preterist framework remains. I find this to be a strength of the movement.

Well of course you’re going to do whatever it takes to remain together.  Hyperpreterists of ALL factions are rejected by historic Christianity just as all factions of Mormons, JWs, and Islam are rejected.  The reference to me attempting to distinguish between the factions was WHILE I was within the movement.  Of course I was trying to promote the more conservative branch at the time, but now I see that the more “consistent” factions are those who have stopped trying to fit into historic, orthodox Christianity.  I like what a hyperpreterist from the consistent faction recently had to say about Frost’s faction:

“In a few years you and your site will become embraced only by the Ed Stevens and Kurt Simmons follower types of Preterism and maybe some reformed folks. The Covenant Creation understanding will move on into the mainstream leaving you guys in the dustbin of history as just another remnant of curiosity in about 5 or 10 years. Fifty years from now the questions being asked is “what happened to that Sam Frost guy who started out so good?” Will history simply say that he got “left behind”? (message to Sam Frost from a fellow hyperpreterist)

Yeah, that really sounds like you guys are getting along just swimmingly.  And the new tone of the movement is evident by your own buddies (source).  Don’t kid yourself Frost, the movement is the same arrogant bunch with or without me in the mix — praise God I and many others have been freed of it!

It has survived what so cripples “denominational” approaches in the eyes of the world. We realize that there is a much larger cause that we do all truly agree upon. We are not surprised, then, that such divergency crops up among us. It’s a natural occurrence, sociologically speaking, within an movement. The problem is that when they crop up, there is usually no mechanism to allow them to do so within a greater unity. We argue for the “unity of the Spirit.” There is only one Church.

Huh?  What in the world are you doing talking about “one Church”?  You have rejected what the Church has taught in unity for 2000 years and yet here you dare to include yourself in the Church?  What an offense!

When Dr. Talbot argues that we have stated, quite publically, that there are indeed incompatible elements within a Preterist framework and a traditionalist framework, this is not a shock to us. We have been saying it for years. I personally handed Dr. Talbot my book, Misplaced Hope, written in 2002, which, right at the first chapter to the last, stated this issue. What he wants to do is single out Vaduva, and call him “the most consistent.” That’s an opinion, not a fact. See, divide and conquer. Yet, he agrees with me when he wrote, “Frost, is correct….” My point here was that a rejection of “some” is not a rejection of “all” – and Talbot agree[s] with me here. Because some elements need to be reformed, does not mean all elements need to be reformed.

Blah blah blah…your book, your book!  Anyhow, let’s quote Samuel Miller once again just for a comparison to Frost’s constant appeal to only be differing a little:

[Heresy] advocates, when together, boast of great improvements, and congratulate one another on having gone greatly beyond the “old dead orthodoxy,” and on having left behind many of its antiquated errors: but when taxed with deviations from the received faith, they complain of the unreasonableness of their accusers, as they “differ from it only in words.” This has been the standing course of errorists ever since the apostolic age.

Talbot DOESN’T agree with you Mr. Frost, that is the point — no truly historic, orthodox, Reformed Christian is going to “agree” with you.  I know it is your most intense desire to run with the big boys, but it just isn’t going to happen.  You need to repent.

It is true that we cannot join Dr. Talbot’s version of what “Reformed” means. That’s fine. There are other versions of “Reformed” anyhow. Dr. Talbot does not get to be the one and only authority that decides what is and what is not Reformed. Another problem that he fails to see is that we do not align ourselves with any particular denomination or sect.

Um…it is not Talbot’s version of Reformed, hyperpreterism is NOT Reformed by any version, and again Mr. Frost has previously admitted a person can’t be “truly Reformed and a ‘full preterist”.  It is sort of like how a liberal politician finds some group that is calling itself Republican and joins up with them — the name given to such a person is “RINO” which is “Republican in name only”.  I guess in this case, as Frost tries to call himself Reformed, he is a RINO - “Reformed in name only”, certainly not in adherence or practice.
Further, Frost LIES as to why his group doesn’t “align with any particular denomination” — Here comes that pesky history thing again.  Frost relates where in 2001 he and a group of hyperpreterists tried to start a  hyperpreterist church, with  Frost as the pastor (without any real ordination mind you).  In relating this, Frost says:

“The group’s general theological basis was Reformed. The government of the church was Presbyterian. However, in light of the eschatological climate of the day, [the church] found itself in a predicament of truly unsettled condition. [The church] had no ‘official’ recognition from any existing Reformed or Presbyterian denomination.” (source, pg 2)

So, you see Frost DID desire to align his group with an existing Reformed or Presbyterian denomination — it was just that none would accept them as legitimate with their hyperpreterism.  Folks, Frost has a history of this kind of subterfuge of the facts when he relates things.  The “eschatological climate of the day” has been the eschatological climate of Christianity for 2000 years.  This guy tries to downplay the unity in the Church so that he can swoop in an bring with him his heresy and think he should be accepted.  Amazing!

We use the word “Reformed” because Preterism is based upon what came out of the Reformation, be it Protestantism, Episcopalianism, or Wesley. Wesley taught “Scripture only”, too. We believe, on the basis of many of the principles within the larger “Reformed” world, that the Church needs still to be “reformed.” It has not arrived. It is entangled in a severely messed up eschatology.

Um, let me tell you Mr. Frost you use the word “Reformed” no differently than did Andreas Karlstadt and Thomas Munzter and the radicals of the Reformation whom Luther, Calvin and the other real Reformers vigorously opposed as much as they opposed the Papists.  The radicals called Luther, “Dr. Easy-Chair” because they didn’t think he went far enough. They too chanted “Scripture Only” but it is not whether a person quotes Scripture, it is how they interpret it. Is it an interpretation that stays true to the context and continuity of interpretation or is it a radically individualized, “new” interpretation? (see here)  What you hyperpreterists call “messed up eschatology”, we call the unified doctrine of Christianity on the topic. You HAVE to portray it as “messed up” so that you can replace it with your version. You deny historic Christian eschatology, thus you are outside that community.  You have “ex-community” yourselves from the community of saints.

The radical differences between Dispensationalism and Postmillennialism can maintain, so they say, a “unity” within the framework (much like I argued in principle above). Within this larger concern, we are Reformed (we deny “works” salvation, we affirm “faith alone”, Christ’s substitutionary sacrifice, the Trinity, etc.,). Yes, we expand the meaning. I never claimed we didn’t.

Once again, Samuel Miller quoted:

[Heresy] advocates, when together, boast of great improvements, and congratulate one another on having gone greatly beyond the “old dead orthodoxy,” and on having left behind many of its antiquated errors: but when taxed with deviations from the received faith, they complain of the unreasonableness of their accusers, as they “differ from it only in words.” This has been the standing course of errorists ever since the apostolic age.

This is the repetition of Frost.  We “differ only in words” — as if what hyperpreterism is, isn’t really as they originally would proclaim, a “paradigm shift”.  Wormy indeed!

In even a much larger framework, Christendom, we are in, whether Talbot protests and cries that we are not, the “unity of the Spirit.” We proclaim ourselves members of the One Body of Christ.

Wait, you AREN’T in Christendom — that is the point.  You can “proclaim yourselves members” all you want but you proclaim things that put you outside of that One Body of Christ.  You are a different body, advocating different doctrines and a different Gospel.

We are not “Church of Christ” within that Body solely, or “Reformed” only. But, these smaller entities within the larger Entity does not say to us, “you are out.” There are no “Frostians” (named after me, like Calvinists); there are no Vaduvians (like Lutherans, named after him). There are different groups, sure, but they are all united under Christ (and to this issue of Christ, I have yet to run into anyone that denies his full diety and humanity). In other words, we look at the larger context of the Church catholic, and then proceed to may our mark within the Church with the label, “Preterist.” It’s “Planet PRETERIST.” It’s “Sovereign Grace PRETERIST”, etc. These do not divide us to the extremes Talbot would make it out to be.

What “christ” are you united under?  Not the same Christ that has been adored, followed, and worshiped by 2000 years of Christians.  You would either need to say, as most hyperpreterists do, that 2000 years of Christians have been advocating a gross error in saying that Jesus is yet to come again, the resurrection of the believers is yet future and physical, that judgment of the wicked and righteous is yet future and that there will be an eventual end of sin and a culmination of God’s plan.  Or, you would have to admit what you are teaching isn’t anything like historic Christianity.  Hyperpreterism ISN’T at all within the larger context of the Church catholic - that is the issue you don’t want to seem to face, at least not your faction.

You see, since we recognized that we are not fully compatible with “traditional” aspects of theology, particularly Reformed theology, Talbot thinks, then, that somehow we are unaware of this fact when we seek to call ourselves “Reformed.” In other words, we can’t use that word because we are Preterists, and Preterists cannot agree with every jot and tittle of the Westminster Confession, therefore, Preterists cannot be traditionally regarded as Reformed. But, doesn’t one see the absurdity of this reasoning when, in fact, it was we that recognized this? We never claimed to be a particular denomination.

The problem is, just as you are using the word “Preterist” without any qualifier as if your hyperpreterism is the true “preterist”, so too do you abuse the word “Reformed” when you apply it to yourselves.  You are no more “Reformed” with or without adherence to the WCF than would be the Mormons who also went well beyond (hyper) anything that has ever been considered Christianity, they too “recognized this” but it hasn’t stopped them from calling themselves the “Church of Jesus Christ” when they clearly are NOT.  You misuse terms and you just want us to ignore it?  I don’t think so.

We never claimed to align all the tenets or “tradition”! It’s like putting on a green shirt, and having an opponent say, “you claim to wear a yellow shirt, but you wear a green shirt.” The response would be, “I never claimed to have a yellow shirt, and I fully well know what color my green shirt is! What’s your point?”

Rather, the more accurate analogy is that you are trying to tell us your green shirt should be also considered a form of yellow because it has used elements of yellow to form it.  In the same way you want to claim you are “Reformed” or “Christian” because hyperpreterism, like Mormonism has stolen elements and added it to its entirely different religion.  If hyperpreterists, would say as your analogy says, that they know they are heretics and outside of Christianity, then you could go on your merry way and we’d have no problem.  But it is because you keep trying to convince people hyperpreterism should be accepted as part of the Body of Christ, that is the problem.

We claim the title “Reformed” on the basis of MANY aspects (not ALL) that we find attractive and are foundational to our REFORMING (ongoing efforts, which ipso fact imply change). In fact, we reject many (not all) Reformed aspects because they, we charge, are not consistent, not biblical, and not compatible even within itself as a system. Traditionalism is not compatible at all with “realized Preterism” or “partial Preterism.” We have demonstrated this over and over again by an appeal to the Councils, Creeds and Fathers. If they get to break the creedal rules, and the “majority of fathers” rules, and the “traditional” rules, then, we argue, why can’t we?

Same argument as the radicals (see link) who wanted Luther to support them in the wholesale overthrow of the Church and society.  We’re not buying it Mr. Frost.  You might be able to sell that to your fawning fans, but we know your history and have source linked it for all to see.

Many opponents of Preterism have taken straight aim at partial Preterism as the reason for the full Preterist movement. Without going into that, in the papers I have read, some from prominent pastors and theologians, the bottom line is that partial Preterism has surrendered way too many passages to the A.D. 70 event. This leaves very little for the full Preterist to leap over; an leap over they do. When confronted with “Tradition” as the so called “bounderies” of God’s word (as if God’s word needs those Councils to speak on His own from Scripture), we simply rejoined with: Scripture only (Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 1). No hurdle stands in our way.

Of course no hurdle stands in your way, you don’t see the continuity of the community of saints as a real thing.  You portray the history of the Church as a giant conflicting, chaotic, morass to which you are arrogantly here to save it from itself.  Where you have to claim Jesus failed, the apostles failed and the Holy Spirit failed to relate and make sure the Church understood the most basics of eschatology, you claim you are able to rightly understand and guide the Church - what arrogance it takes to be a hyperpreterist.  No hurdles indeed, you step over what you consider the dead body of Christianity in your effort to create a new religion.  The problem with the original preterists (those you call “partial preterists”) is that they didn’t anticipate you guys using their conclusions to go beyond (hyper) and create this new religion. In Luther’s day, they put a quick stop to the radical corrupting of what the Reformers intended.  If only the original preterists would be more forceful in shutting down your corruption - Gary DeMar are you listening?

Now, in conclusion, Talbot wants us to say, on the basis of his logic, that we cannot insist on calling ourselves Christians. This is false. Not one of the persons he has quoted would affirm this. Bryan Lewis and Dave Green use the term “orthodoxy” and compatibility. Not one of these authors have stated that Preterism is not compatible and cannot live at peace within Christendom.

So, just because hyperpreterists WANT to wear the shirt of orthodoxy doesn’t mean they are and it has been shown clearly that they are NOT.  Again, Mormons, cults, and heresies of all kinds as Samuel Miller pointed out “always begin by skulking, and assuming a disguise…They are almost never honest and candid as a party, until they gain strength enough to be sure of some degree of popularity”.
Wasn’t that what Frost said in the first paragraph of his article — that he thinks because these orthodox men are giving more attention to hyperpreterism, that it must prove that it has gained strength and popularity?

Again, if WE are the ones Talbot quotes, and WE are the ones that realize whatever point he is trying to strangle from these quotes, then, wouldn’t it dawn on him as to WHY we would STILL call ourselves Reformed, Christian, members of the One Body, the Church – with the SAME Lord as HEAD over ALL? Wouldn’t that have dawned on him at all? From his paper, he does not even consider this.

No, you still want to consider yourselves within Christianity because the moment you are truthful and admit you are not, is the moment people will no longer be duped into the movement as if it is just another expression of Christianity, like Baptist, Presbyterian and so forth.

Let me demonstrate his argument in a little dialogue:
“You Preterist[s] have said you are not like every aspect of Orthodox Christianity.”
“Right. We are not.
“Then how can you claim to be a Christian at all?”
“Easy. We don’t deny every tenet, even the most important ones, namely, who Christ is and what He has done. Plus, creeds and confessions “have and may err.””
“Well, this means you cannot be called Reformed.”
“Well, we can. It depends on your definition. Who gave you the authority in your little denomination to say who is and who is not Reformed? What is it about the name Reformed PRETERIST are you not understanding? Preterist eschatology obviously will not agree on every point! It’s preterism for pete’s sake!”
“Well, then you can’t claim Christ.”
“Says who?” At this point, the conversation loses itself. Dr. Talbot has not demonstrated anything other than what we have been saying for over a decade. If you are going to be a Full Preterist, your are going to have to chuck some of your pet doctrines because they are incompatible with the Bible. In fact, the reason you became a preterist in the first place is because your traditional denominations were bankrupt when it came to answering your questions about eschatology. So, naturally, you should not be that shocked to find out that they are also wrong on some other issues, as well.

Well that entire example was bogus.  Here is what is REALLY being said. Hyperpreterism is NOTHING like historic Christianity anymore than is Mormonism.  Sure, Mormons say Jesus Christ. Sure, they even read the KJV along with the book of Mormon and I’m sure they hold many, but not all things that would make them look “Christian” to an outsider who wouldn’t know better.
What is revealing is that Frost FINALLY opens up and shows us the overarching hyperpreterist premise, he says, “traditional denominations were bankrupt when it came to answering your questions about eschatology” — What are the “traditional denominations”?  This is a game the hyperpreterists play, especially when they use the label “Futurism/Futurists” in contrast to Hyperpreterism.  There is no such thing as “Furturism/Futurists”.  They want to portray it as one element of Christianity opposed to another when in fact it is ALL of “traditional” or rather historical Christianity against the heresy called Hyperpreterism.  Hyperpreterists MUST breakdown a person’s reliance on “traditional/historic” Christianity so that they can replace it with their new religion.

Like Luther, an overhaul was needed from the Authorities and their Doctrines they held by power over the ignorant. And, who dared question these men and their authority? Well, Luther did. Calvin blasted them. Zwingli thumbed his nose at their “Lord’s Table” and their “church.” He smasked their idols. He crushed their appeals to tradition and history. How did he do it? “The Word of God rightly understood.”
We are members of the one body of Christ, with Christ as our Head, brothers and sisters with all those who call upon the name of the Lord. Amen and Amen.

Yet again, here Frost thinks he is a little Luther.  This has been the ongoing psychosis of hyperpreterism.  In reality, hyperpreterism is more akin to the Arians who came along questioning the deity of Christ, and doing so “only with Scripture”.  Ironically enough, Frost even at one time equated his hyperpreterism with Arianism.  Here is the quote and audio:

Now my question is when did we do this for the second coming of Christ? When have we had these councils & Arius that came up & said ‘Hey, ‘, because afterall we became Trinitarians because there was a guy named Arius who stood up & said, `Hey I think Jesus was the first created being. I don’t think he was an eternal being.’  Then you had a lot of people begin saying, ‘Now wait a minute here.’ & they began to go back to the Scriptures & they began to fight for hundreds of years & they finally came out with what you know we have at Chalcedon..you know Nicean Chalcedon.  But somebody rose their hand up & said, ‘Hey can I challenge this?’ & that’s all..that’s what I’m doing I’m asking, ‘Can I challenge this? Can I question -he shall come again and judge the living & the dead- Can we…can I question that? ‘ (you gotta hear him actually say it — source)

IN CONCLUSION
Frost is in full denial mode.  He is denying that what he is advocating via hyperpreterism is outside of Christianity, or maybe at times he is admitting it yet still demanding to be accepted as Christian.  He wants to be allowed to define what is “Reformed”. What is “Christian”.  This from a man who once said Mormons were his brothers in Christ.
I would urge anyone on the fence to see what is going on here and flee from sin.
Talbot’s original article: http://theologyexplained.ning.com/
Frost’s response: http://thereignofchrist.com/response-to-dr-talbot/
(because we aren’t “embarrassed” to source link)