Saturday, April 21, 2012


Set aside for a moment the entire debate as to whether or not Full Preterism is true or not. How did many people become FPists? Often through the interpretative works of men such as Gary DeMar and Kenneth Gentry. These men have written books that take a person right to the edge of FPism and then drop them off. Further, the works by these men (especially DeMar) don't usually make a clear distinction between the differences of so-called "Partial-Preterism" and FPism. As a matter of fact, most of the reasoning from the pens of these men; if held consistently, SHOULD lead a person to conclude FPism.

Now, add to that men like Sam Frost, who had spent over 12 years, claiming to be a scholar; claiming to employ "logic" and "hermeneutics", and "exegesis" to conclude a FPist interpretation. Frost recently (2011) left the FPist movement but has done little to explain how he could have supposedly been so wrong. Sure, he is now "refuting" FPism, but if he REALLY used logic, hermeneutics, and exegesis to conclude FPism was correct; what is he using now to conclude it is wrong?

This is why I say FPists are in someway abused. You have supposedly scholarly, and respected men like DeMar, Gentry, and even David Chilton and R.C. Sproul sr. who have greatly contributed toward making FPism look like a really viable eschatological option. Yet when pressed to clarify why taking it that far is wrong; these men are at a loss or seem to fall back on the creeds.

In Frost's case; his mentor, Kenneth Talbot president of Whitefield Theological Seminary calls Frost an "expert" on eschatology. If Frost is being presented as an "expert" then why shouldn't FPists follow what Frost said BEFORE he became beholden to flattery? I mean, after all; Frost claimed to be using logic, hermeneutics, and exegesis. It is more likely that a person is being objective when they have nothing to gain. Now, Frost is being flattered and promised advancement within Talbot's seminary.

So, if FPism is wrong -- are any of these men culpable for leading people to it and then telling them they can't take it that far? Further, when these same men "attack" FPists, they really are attacking the very people they made. Many FPists credit men like DeMar for helping them see the FPists view. Most FPists are simply employing the logic, hermeneutic, and exegesis put forth by these men. Lastly, if a large group of people started concluding Mormonism based on something I was teaching; even though I claimed I wasn't trying to teach Mormonism, wouldn't it be my responsibility to clarify my teaching so as to help people avoid concluding Mormonism? The excuse of; "well, I can't control what people conclude" doesn't cut it when such a large number conclude FPism from the works of men like DeMar. They "abuse" people when they ignore their part and then actually attack those same people they more or less made.

No comments: