Saturday, December 31, 2011

Common Goals Need Common Principles

As I watch PaulT flail about I've been thinking why there is such a disparity between me and the "Clarkian" anti-prets. I mean we have the common goal of opposing hyper or full preterism right? So shouldn't we be getting along swimmingly? I mean look, it was not too long ago that PaulT and Sam Frost were blasting each other as "illogical" and as "liars", but now that Frost suddenly APPEARS to have switched sides, all of the "illogic" and "lying" is swept under the rug in pursuit of the common goal.

WHERE I WENT least by Clarkians point of view

First, in any relationship; be it a business partnership, a sports team, a military alliance or a marriage there has to be MORE THAN a common goal. There has to be common principles driving toward that goal. For example, in WW2 the Allies joined with Russia/U.S.S.R just long enough to accomplish the common goal of defeating the Axis powers. But the USA and Russia didn't share the common principles and spent the next 50+ years at odds in a "Cold War".

Where I went wrong with the Clarkian anti-prets like PaulT, Sam Frost, Dee Dee Warren and their  leader, Kenneth Talbot is that I don't share their common principles...or rather, their LACK of principles. For example, when I pointed out the flawed principles of their leader, PaulT actually said: "Roderick, I don't care if everything you say about him is true, we must protect his reputation." THAT is NOT a principle I share. I don't cover up corruption even among the people with whom I share a common goal. If they are corrupt, they are corrupt. This stance has made me a pariah among the Clarkians. The Clarkians have other principles I do not share, such as blatant misquoting people or making up quotes out of nowhere. They also like to call people undefined names like "turd", "bonehead", "jerks". I have no problem describing (naming) people and things but I like to use objective words like "snob", "elitist", "liar" -- those things can be immediately demonstrated as to whether it is true or not. On the other hand, how is a person demonstrated to be a "turd"??? These kind of names are simply immature and senseless.

So, just because people have common goals doesn't mean they can work together. If a sports team who's goal is to win the game has some people who want to play by the rules to win and some people who will make questionable plays to win; then that team will eventually fail to make the goal. I don't want to be on the Clarkian team where its "players" are men and women who often operate in inconsistency, hypocrisy, senseless and immature name calling, and outright flamboyant egotism, not to mention outright lying. If that makes me a lone-ranger outcast, so be it.

Remember Braveheart? William Wallace thought he shared the common goal with the Nobles of routing the English from Scotland, but when the Nobles acted corruptly, even betraying Wallace and principles; Wallace eventually opposed both the English and the Scottish Nobles. Although I'm no blue-faced Braveheart :o I feel much like Wallace.

The anti-pret "Nobles" and their "Robert the Bruce" seminarian are compromisers and corrupt men and women who can't be trusted by either side....or is their leader really Mornay?

Wednesday, December 21, 2011

This is what happens when you go around attacking people and just attacking like....well...jerks.  These two fellows expressly came onto a forum where I interact with hyperpreterists and those who are looking into hyperpreterism.  They didn't come to discuss any of that.  They came specifically to shout me down and shut me up.  They don't like it when I point out how Kenneth Talbot has compromised with the hyperpreterists.

Well, the first fellow who arrogantly enough thinks he is a "slamdunker" is really named Phil Naessens.  This is the same fellow who has threatened to sue me yet he thinks I should continue to interact with him and answer his questions. I don't communicate with folks that break 1 Cor 6.  I don't communicate with folks that have such thin skin that they go to the "Gentiles" for help when they can't handle the FACTS.

The next fellow, "kingneb" is none other than Jason Bradfield; Sam Frost's P.R. man.  This isn't the first time Jason was banned from this forum.  He ignored the rules of the forum and started attacking the moderators -- whom I do not know from Adam.  Jason even smugly accused the moderator of being "my girlfrield".  Huh???  First, I've been married for over 21 years and secondly, no one knows the gender of the moderator in question.  Simply immature of Jason.

Why do I relate all of this here?  What does this have to do with preterism or hyperpreterism?

Monday, December 19, 2011

Clarkian Admits Clarkianism Lends to Hyperpreterism

Some people have had a difficult time following why I am so against Clarkianism; after all its axiom is: "The Bible is the Word of God written" -- why should I oppose that?  I don't.  Of course the Bible is the Word of God written, but that hasn't been the starting point in historic Christianity.

Cornelius Van Til and others in 1944 lodged a complaint against Gordon Clark's ordination/licensure within Van Til's denomination.  Not only did Van Til's group complain that the denomination was waiving the rules that Clark had to have 2 years seminary training; Clark was philosophically trained but not theologically -- but they complained that Clark was compromising major elements of the Faith.  Van Til said:

"The Christian doctrine of the knowledge of God is distinguished as well by its affirmation of the incomprehensibility of God as by its assertion of his knowability. The point does not need to be labored that the knowability of God lies at the very foundation of Christianity. That God can be known, and that he has given a knowledge of himself through his works and words, is pervasively taught in the Scriptures. The possibility and actuality of true religion depend upon the light and truth which God communicates to men. Skepticism and agnosticism are thoroughly anti-Christian." -- SOURCE:

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Kenneth Talbot - The Hypocrite

Dr. Kenneth Talbot, president of Whitefield Theological Seminary has a history of compromising with the heresy of Hyper-Preterism. This history started when he utilized hyperpreterist leader, Sam Frost to help develop student materials for the seminary.  Next, Talbot has been documented as calling hyperpreterists; "brothers".  But perhaps the worse affront to the Christian Faith is when Talbot knowingly enrolled hyperpreterist leader; Larry Siegle into Whitefield's "minister's" program.  To whom does Talbot intend the hyperpreterist to minister with his Whitefield validated degree?

Maybe all of this wouldn't matter if Talbot presented himself as a liberal, "ecumenicist" -- we would expect such a "pastor" to be a compromiser but not only does Talbot present himself as Reformed but also as extremely orthodox.  This behavior from Talbot is disillusioning to Christians and makes it worse that Talbot's followers; in a sense of loyalty to him, help to cover up for him or even help to attack those who would dare point out what Talbot is doing.

What makes Talbot an even bigger hypocrite and one that even the hyperpreterists should point out; Talbot's self-made denomination, RCPGA released a statement in 2010 condemning hyperpreterism:

"Whereas, these views represent an attack upon and undermining of the holy catholic faith once delivered unto the saints,
Therefore, in the certain Hope of the Resurrection, at the Second Coming of Christ, and the Final Judgment at the end of history, the Reformed Presbyterian Church General Assembly does hereby find that Full Preterism, Hyper-preterism or any other Eschatological System promoting any one or all of these errors is errant, heretical, and apostate, being therefore contrary to evangelical orthodoxy." --
Why does Talbot on one hand coddle Frost for 10 years, use him to help develop student materials for his supposed "Christian" seminary, enroll a hyperpreterist into a "minister's" program with intent to bestow a degree on him, call hyperpreterists "brothers", and even say his own eschatology is "akin" to David Chilton's (Chilton who was a documented hyperpreterist -- ref), and lastly we have this picture of Talbot and his wife eating dinner with Siegle, Frost and their wives.

Talbot is the man on the far front right, Siegle is behind Talbot and Frost is at the back left.  In light of 1 Cor 5:11 which says:

"But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person."

Sunday, December 11, 2011

Dee Dee Warren Attacks James White

Dee Dee Warren, owner of the blog PreteristBlog who has promoted hyperpreterist compromiser Kenneth Talbot is now attacking James White.  White has been consistent in opposing hyperpreterism, unlike Talbot who actually was using a hyperpret to help develop student materials for his supposed "Christian" seminary.  Further, Talbot has knowingly enrolled hyperpret leader Larry Siegle into a "minister" program in Whitefiled Theological Seminary (Talbot's seminary).  To whom will Siegle minister once he obtains his Talbot validated degree???

On the issue of Talbot knowingly enrolling a hyperpret into his seminary Warren said:

"I don’t believe orthodox institutions should knowingly allow those who deny an essential of the faith into their midst...Dr. Talbot knows I do not agree at all with orthodox schools allowing blatantly heretical students, but that is not the area of responsibility that God has given me. I am just noting my total disagreement for the public record, and will speak with Dr. Talbot in more detail if he wants to know more." -- source

Why does Warren want to critique Dr. James White but will not publicly address her mentor on such an important issue?  Why does she claim "that is not the area of responsibility that God has given" her but thinks it is perfectly fine for her to poke her hypocritical nose into White's business?  Who does this woman think she is?

Thursday, December 1, 2011

Sam Frost Thinks Hyperprets Hold the Scriptural High Ground

Hyperpreterists always like to act like they are the grand champions of Scripture and everyone else are simply "creedalists", yet they cannot explain WHAT, WHY, and HOW the Bible is the least without undermining hyperpreterism itself.  Hyperpreterism's main premise is that for whatever reason; the Church fell flat on its discernment butt -- it supposedly grossly misunderstood and misinterpreted God's basic eschatological plan and instead, Christianity for 2000 years has been offering the world a lie when it comes to eschatology.

Well, now the champion of Clarkianism, Sam Frost has endorsed and validated the notion that hyperpreterists are the keepers of "Scripture as the Supreme Judge".  Frost, in his unbridled hatred of me quips about my interaction with his 3 hyperpret co-authors.

lol….I am watching Ed, Mike and Dave slam Roderick on Pret Compost……Never argue with a FP on their foundation of Scripture as the Supreme Judge…..they’ll get ya every time (rightly so). Green smashed Wilson on this point. (source)
It is no wonder that people see the Talbotite Clarkians as compromisers with Hyperpreterists; not only has Frost's mentor, Kenneth Talbot allowed a known hyperpret help develop student materials for his seminary, and enrolled a known hyperpret into a "ministers" course at his seminary; but Talbot even point blank told us his version of eschatology is "akin" to what hyperpret David Chilton taught (see here).

Now here is this snobbish, elitist Clarkian Talbotite telling people that the hyperprets hold the Scriptural high ground.  And people actually think Frost left the movement???  You could have fooled me.