But now Sammy has been spouting more silliness. In a recent article*, Frost tries to compare hyperpreterists to Martin Luther & the other Reformers. He even tries to utilize the argument I used to make as a hyperpreterist – that the first Reformation happened during the advent of the printing press & the “second Reformation” (hyperpreterism) is happening during the advent of the Internet. I guess now that I’m not advocating hyperpreterism Sammy felt safe to plagiarize ideas.
Frost starts his article in the typical Sammy fashion…bragging about his supposed scholarship. “I studied here or there & under this or that fellow…see how smart I am? blah blah blah”. The lines are becoming predictable yet his pals never hold him accountable for his ego.
But it’s the new moniker that Frost used in the article that I find interesting. He is calling his group, “Biblical Preterists”. Well, there is only really one other faction of hyperpreterists & that is the liberal faction led by Sammy’s long time “dear brother” Virgil Vaduva. Is Sammy throwing Virgil under the bus? Sammy certainly threw another friend, Jason Bradfield under the bus a while back when he did a podcast that basically was a pandering to the postmodernism which Bradfield was opposing but by default of Sammy’s comments had to appear to be compromising/caving. So, if Sammy thinks his group are “Biblical Preterists”, then what does that make Vaduva’s faction?
In the article, Frost tries to make it look like Luther stood only on the force of his personal interpretation of Scripture & his conscience & therefore Frost claims he & the other hyperpreterists are simply doing the same. Sammy…I WAS a hyperpreterist for 15 years remember? I used to employ that reasoning too…but it fails when you realize that though you can quote this sentence by Luther, you cannot & should NOT ignore the fact that Luther & the other Reformers DID believe that all of Church history sided with them. It is evident in their life work & practice. They did NOT see themselves as John McCain mavericks starting some “new kind of Christianity” (as your postmodern buddies so often are desiring). You also IGNORE the fact that the Reformation WASN’T simply about the Reformers versus the Papacy – there was yet another group – the “radical Reformers” – such men as Andreas Carlstadt, Thomas Munzer, & Jan van Batenburg. This is the correct correlation between the Reformation era & the hyperpreterists. The parallels are uncanny, even down to that things both groups teach. A disdain for traditional Christianity & an advocacy of such things as polygamy.
Frost further tries to equate his band of real heretics to the Reformers by saying:
“…at first, Luther objected to a few abuses and the interpretation of the “righteousness of God.” But, this single doctrine overthrew other doctrines of the Church and soon, Luther was taking on every doctrine, reforming it to conform to the Bible.”
Did Luther really think he was “overthrowing doctrines of the Church”??? No, the Reformers believed that Papal Catholicism had CEASED to represent the “the Church”. Is Frost prepared to say that “the Church” had ceased to be represented until 1971 when Max King started his cult? Frost’s understanding of Christian history is so contorted I find it amazing that even his hanger-ons do not take him to task.
Frost believes hyperpreterism has entered a new stage…”a stage of following the implications. Many of these have already been struck down as untenable, like Universalism.” – Oops, someone may want to tell Vaduva & his liberal faction (which is larger & more vocal than Sammy’s quasi-conservatives). The liberal faction certainly finds universalism to not only to be tenable but completely consistent with hyperpreterism.
Lastly, as Frost has done in other articles, he tries to trivialize the difference between hyperpreterism & historic Christianity. He says the objection to hyperpreterism is not a biblical objection: “In fact, it is not that we have contradicted the Bible - for that has not been shown. It is the very fact that we contradict the Nicene Council in one word.”
First of all who says it has not been shown that hyperpreterism contradicts the Bible? There are plenty of writers that have shown how UNbiblical hyperpreterism is – it is just that Sammy & his cohorts dismiss those critiques just as they even now try to dismiss & ignore their critics (by calling their critics “nameless” & talking about having “closure” on their critics). But the trivializing of the issue is shown when Frost says the objection to hyperpreterism is simply because they [hyperpreterists] “contradict the Nicene Council in one word”. What word is he talking about? Before I answer, let it be known one of the first heresies in the Church – the Arian Heresy was over “one word” but that one word made a world of difference in how a person viewed Christ, God & the Trinity. The word was “homoousian” which intended to relate that Jesus is of the same, equal substance of God & not merely God-like (homoiousian). Fortunately, the Arians & their merely God-like version of Jesus did not win out, even with all the appeals of the Arians to “Scripture alone” when in actuality they appealed to their own ignorance & arrogance just as do the hyperpreterists.
So, what is the one word of the Nicene Creed which hyperpreterism contradicts? It is the word SHALL as in “He SHALL come again” (see Nicene Creed). Frost, like the Arians before him like to paint this as a mere squabble over one word. The irony is not lost that the hyperpreterist controversy is directly tied to the Arian controversy. Both have issues with the Nicene Creed & both claimed they were/are simply being “biblical” when in actuality they so distort the Bible that the Church had to come together to counter the heresy. If hyperpreterism ever gets beyond the 47 people who attend the same conferences every year, then perhaps it will warrant a stronger response – but for now, the whole movement is nothing but a group of arrogant arm-chair theologian wanna-bes following around the likes of theological socialists & supposed M.A.R. scholars.