Sunday, December 12, 2010

Onus Probandi - Samuel Frost M.A.R.

onus probandiHyperpreterist teacher and "leader" Sam Frost said on Feb 8, 2010:

"I am a Trinitarian, for example, because the creeds have settled that matter for me in Church History. It is the majority view. I wouldn't even begin to attempt to argue against it unless there was some massive warrant (like Preterism) to do so." (source)

The context for this quote, before I'm accused of taking it out of context, is Frost arguing with his follow hyperpreterist, Norm Voss. Voss is advocating that historic Christianity is so messed up, that hyperpreterists should chuck historic Christian interpretations (especially as it relates to the Genesis account) and start over from scratch.

Now, here is the problem with Frost's quote; who is he to say what IS and ISN'T such a "settled matter" that people should "even begin to attempt to argue against it"?

This is my point about hyperpreterism -- it is arrogant at its very core. Consider, that Frost claims "Preterism" is a "massive warrant" to argue against not just the eschatological "majority view" as he paints it, but rather Frost and his fellow hyperpreterists think they have "warrant" to argue against THE historic Christian view on eschatology.

I'm calling it THE historic Christian view on eschatology because, whether you look at pre-Roman Catholicism, Roman Catholicism, Greek/Eastern Orthodox, Syrian, Reformed/Protestant, Anabaptist, or Modern Evangelical -- ALL of these expressions of the Christian Faith have been UNITED in affirming the 4 things that hyperpreterism denies. THE historic Christian view of eschatology probably has more weight behind it than even the belief in the Trinity YET, Frost thinks he has "warrant" to question it? And not only a question of a minor "tweak", but a question of a radical departure. ARROGANCE!

Frost attempts to school Voss by telling Voss:
"I submitted that the onus probandi (burden of proof) is always on the minority view, and that such a view as full preterism must make its case utilizing that same standard of scholarship and expertise and tools that we find in conservative evangelicalism."

Yet day in and day out, on this and other message boards across the net, hyperpreterists are always trying to put us Christians on the defensive as if the "onus probandi" is on us. It is not.

Hyperpreterism is not just a "minority view", it is a minuscule view that is OUTSIDE of all historic Christian variations on eschatology. Hyperpreterism CAN'T make its case using the tools of conservative evangelicalism because hyperpreterism is neither conservative or evangelical (Christian). Hyperpreterism is something OTHER than Christian and Voss understands that hyperpreterism must break completely from so-called "futurism" (which is hyperpret code word for; "historic Christianity").

Folks, Frost himself has revealed why it is pointless to get into proof-texting boxing matches with hyperpreterists -- they don't care how any text was ever interpreted, instead it is about their own private interpretations and personal views (just watch how much they talk about "my view" this or "my view" that -- challenging us to "deal with their view" as if the onus probandi is on us.

Hyperpreterism is at the stage where it desperately wants and needs attention -- even epitomizing the old saying, that "even bad press is good press". They just want to get "their view" onto the theological table. It is our OBLIGATION as Christians to EXPOSE (Eph 5:11) these kind of views as the wide-eyed heresies they are, if not for the people duped within them at least for those who may become duped....those who arrogantly think there is "massive warrant" to argue against 2000 years of UNITED Christian interpretation on the basics of eschatology.

Dear hyperpreterists, if you don't want to listen to me, listen to what Frost said without realizing it.

No comments: