Sam Popped The Bubble?

I am glad to hear that former hyperpreterist leader Sam Frost has left the movement. And during his recent exchanges with one of his former proteges', Mike Bennett it appears Sam won't be straddling the fence anymore. He is even using terms like "historic Christian Faith" -- what I have been arguing for since the get go -- no modified "Realized Preterism" for me. But Sam STILL needs to check his ego. He recently claimed this:

"I have single handedly popped their Full Preterist bubble, and many have come out of this movement as a result." -- source

Really? So, the YEARS and YEARS of work by folks such as Ken Gentry, Dee Dee Warren, Todd Dennis, Vince Krivda, PaulT, and myself had no effect? Sam takes credit for "single-handedly" popping the Full Preterist bubble???

Granted, Sam had many followers that have left due to his leaving but I think that had less to do with his arguments (especially since his arguments -- about it being about presupposition -- is in reality MY ARGUMENT), it has more to do with cronyism. Sam's followers are simply following where he is going. Not all of them mind you, but some.

Now, I don't want to detract from what is happening. I don't really care what the impetus was for these folks leaving the heresy of hyperpreterism. I'm just glad they left. However, the hypocrisy of Sam berating my arguments for years and then turning around and acting like they were his arguments and he has single-handedly caused many to leave the movement -- that is just an insult to folks who have been combating the heresy longer than he has. Please Sam, have some humility.

UPDATE:

Okay, as more proof that Sam needs help checking his ego, on April 27th during a podcast with a hyperpret named Mike Loomis, Sam again takes credit for supposed increased traffic on hyperpreterist websites. The hyperpret host even tries to temper Sam's ego by correcting Sam's statement that the increased traffic is "probably" due to Sam. Listen to this 20 second mp3 file:


http://thekingdomcome.com/sites/default/files/allaboutsam.mp3

Sam And Jason Catch Up

As readers may know, two high profile hyperpreterists recanted that heresy in 2010-2011 -- Jason Bradfield and Sam Frost. I have eagerly, yet painfully been following their transition out of the heresy. It is painful sometimes because they are JUST NOW seeing the things I have been trying to tell them for some time now. They wouldn't listen to me because of their irrational hatred for me. But oh well, so long as they leave that heresy.

Jason especially but also Sam have been writing some interesting articles. For example, Jason wrote an article called: Paul the Deceitful? where Jason points out that when the apostle Paul in Acts 26:3 associated his teaching of the Resurrection as the same as the Pharisees teaching, that Paul either taught the same thing; which is a physical resurrection of believers or Paul was being deceitful.

Now Jason may have thought he stumbled on a great silver bullet against hyperpreterism, but Jason is a bit late. In an article I wrote for PreteristBlog in June 2008 I pointed out:

"Lastly, when Paul spoke about the resurrection of the believers he claimed to be teaching the very same resurrection as the Pharisees (Acts 23:6-8). The question then is, what kind of resurrection did the Pharisees teach? Did the Pharisees teach a mere resurrection of the spirit or did they also advocate a resurrection of the physical body? (read here)

Even from the biblical sources about the Pharisees, it is obvious that they believed in a physical resurrection, otherwise it would be nonsense for the Sadducees to pose the question of, in the resurrection whose wife a woman would be after having customarily marrying the brother(s) of her deceased first husband & then eventually dying herself. (Mat 22:23-33, Lk 20:27-36)"

As much as I am excited to see Sam and Jason come to realize these things, it is painful and discouraging that neither of these men seem to have the humility to say, "Roderick, we were wrong to have constantly acted like you didn't know what you're talking about". Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say, "Ohhhh look at me! look at me! how smart am I?", rather I'd like to see just a bit of humility from these guys after the years and years of abuse I have had to endure from them. They may think; "Huh? abuse from us? Roderick you constantly were coming at us". Yes I was, with the kind of articles you see in June 2008 AND with articles calling on them to stop being arrogant...a side effect of hyperpreterism. Anyhow, I'm glad Sam and Jason are catching up.

PaulT Corrects Phil Naessens and Dr. Kenneth Talbot

Hyperpreterist compromiser, Phil Naessens has for a long time allowed himself to be depicted as a "brother in Christ" with Hyperpreterists. Most recently, in promotion of a co-hosted podcast Naessens allows hyperpreterist Mike Loomis to say about Loomis and Naessens:

"The purpose of this program is to demonstrate how two brothers in Christ can disagree agreeably." -- source

Further, Dr. Kenneth Talbot has long called hyperpreterists "brother".

But on April 12, 2011 one of Naessens and Talbot's buddies, PaulT Gates unwittingly admonished Naessens and Talbot (about time).

"Loomis is suggesting hyperpreterism’s future lies in something similar to the Liberalism of the 19th century hyperpreterism is clearly a different religion than Christianity. Thus the only claim a hyperpreterist has to being a brother with a Christian is that they are a brother in Adam, not in Christ." -- source

Of course PaulT will probably claim that Naessens and Talbot are either exempt from this correction or try to spin it so that Naessens and Talbot haven't really compromised in depicting themselves as "brothers" in Christ with Hyperpreterists.

Antithesis Hour 0002 - Time-Texts

The second episode of the REAL Antithesis Hour will be recorded Thursday April 7th and uploaded by the 8th. During this show the hosts, Roderick Edwards and RiversOfEden will open the "mailbag" and discuss feedback from the first episode. We'll also address some of the latest developments.

TIME-TEXTS DISCUSSED
Mt 10:23
Mt 16:27-28

Listen to this podcast:
See how REAL antithesis works. To download to your mp3 device or computer -- right click HERE and SAVEAS.
Or listen using the player below.

Sam Frost STILL doesn't know what he is talking about

Sam Frost, a supposed ex-hyperpret who has yet to actually put into action his comment that "Full preterism is incompatible with Christianity", since he continues to act like hyperpreterists are his "brothers in Christ"; recently said:

"This is why Roderick’s argument would never work. To deal with any error, you have to deal with exegesis. You have to first expose the presuppositions as false." -- source

Huh??? Sam "Roderick's argument" all along has been that we have to first expose the presuppositions as false.

This was the big debate between me and your mentor, Dr. Kenneth Talbot. If you knew what you're talking about, you'd know this.

Here's the evidence. In an interaction with Talbot, now deleted by Talbot's supporters from its original source, not surprisingly so, I SPECIFICALLY point out that FACT that we have to first expose the presuppositions as false.

"Thank you Dr. Talbot for asking the questions. Yes, you are correct -- ALL STATEMENTS ARE PROPOSITIONAL -- that is exactly the point and why I like to deal first and foremost with the proposition of an argument BEFORE I get into the so-called "evidence/exegesis". The overarching proposition of historic Christianity is that God is sovereign, in complete control. God has planned and decreed things, not just let them haphazardly unfold for anyone to take up." - source

The sad but humorous part is that then Talbot after attempting to berate me, restates MY ARGUMENT as if it was his (much like Sam is doing now).

"Roderick, when the hyperpreterists state that they "start with the Bible" as Dr. Clark use to say, "that is commendable." However, that means nothing! They come with presuppositional dogma that forces them to skew exegetical studies, twist the Scriptures with "bad" hermeneutics, and then with a boldness that boast on the side of arrogance, they assert that they alone have the "key" to the "truth which unlocks the knowledge of God about the whole Bible which has been misinterpreted and everything needs to be tweaked to get it right."

Um....? Yeah, exactly my point. Hyperpreterism is about their presuppositional dogma which drives EVERYTHING else they believe. We must therefore deal with that presuppositional situation.

I just get so sick of all the falsehoods spewed not only by the hyperprets but by the Talbotites....and then they are too cowardly to interact directly and be challenged BY SOURCE LINKED FACTS. Instead they ban and bluff and bloat about.

This Is How To Leave A Heresy

I started this blog in December 2007 to UNDO what I had done by teaching and advocating the heresy of Hyper/Full Preterism. At the time, I was ridiculed by the hyperpreterists but now we see more and more high-profile people leaving the hyperpreterist movement. One such person is Jason Bradfield, whom anyone can tell you doesn't count me as a friend...even now. However I am constantly amazed how the Lord Jesus Christ works. Listen to this podcast Jason did and you will see he too sees the need to UNDO what he has done. There is no sweeping his past under the rug, or modifying his "preterism" into a "Chilton kind" or any such nonsense. Further, Jason understands and doesn't back down from the FACT that people who advocate hyperpreterism actually are deluded and need to repent of advocating it. Jason has stuck to his guns on this even after the perennial mushy-gushy hyperpreterist, Larry Siegle tried to lay on Jason with Larry's typical syncreticism.

Another thing that is important to note is that my ferocious opposition to men like Dr. Kenneth Talbot and Phil Naessens was in-line with what Jason is NOW saying -- I mean, if hyperpreterism is as distorted as Jason (and his mentor Sam Frost) are NOW saying; then men like Talbot and Naessens should have NEVER given it even a whiff of validation (by calling hyperpreterists "brothers" and such). So, whether Jason and Sam and some of these others are ever friendly towards me, perhaps they can NOW understand why hyperpreterism SHOULD be so ferociously opposed -- especially by men of the stature of Talbot. It continually broke my heart to see Talbot give ANY validation toward this heresy and thereby perhaps causing men like Jason to remain in it longer than he did.

Anyhow, take a few moments to listen to what Jason says NOW. It is a blessing.

Refuting Hyperpreterism: Presupposition VS Proof-text

After YEARS of hyperpreterists AND defenders of hyperpreterists (like Phil Naessens and Kenneth Talbot) criticizing me for CONSTANTLY pointing out that we should be battling hyperpreterism based on its presupposition rather than its proof-texts, former hyperpreterist Sam Frost AGREES with my approach. In a podcast aired March 30, 2011 Frost said:

"You can proof-text all day long. Anybody can proof-text Scripture and support their view. It's the PRESUPPOSITIONS, that's what you've got to attack. That's what you have to go over." -- Sam Frost (31 sec audio)

So what is the presupposition of Hyperpreterism?????? That God has been unable or unwilling to sustain truth and the basic understanding of truth for 2000 years. Folks THAT is the presupposition of the Full/Hyperpreterist position, no matter how they try to spin it. They MUST believe God failed. They can't say, "No, no men failed in not comprehending or in distorting God's basic eschatological plan." Ultimately God is the sustainer of truth and by the hyperpreterist presupposition, God has failed.

Now, will Sam Frost, Kenneth Talbot, Jason Bradfield, Phil Naessens and all of these people take back claiming I am a "slanderer"? No, because that would take some real humility and I just don't think they have it in them. It's good and well that Frost can say things like the quote above but never would they acknowledge THAT is what I've been saying ALL ALONG.