Why I Left Full Preterism Before Sam Frost: A Review

PREFACE:

Before anyone asks it, let me answer this question that often comes up. "Why not just rejoice in the fact that Sam Frost has left Full Preterism?"  Well, because if Full Preterism really is the heresy it is claimed to be, it would be like rejoicing in joining up with the Russians to fight the Nazis. The Russian leadership supposedly killed 14-25 million Russians after WW2. Even the Nazis supposedly killed only 6 million Jews.  

I'm sorry, but I've known and interacted with Frost for over 20 years. The man is a fraud. From the time he used to get on the live-talk PalTalk system admitting he was drunk out of his mind but yet "preaching" to people to his even now claiming he has pastor credentials though he was only ever a self-appointed leader of a small group of Full Preterists. If people think this kind of person is a credible source of information, they will be opening themselves up to a con-job.  I don't believe Frost has REALLY left Full Preterism; he has merely left the lay-led movement and now is trying to formulate another version of Preterism, along with his mentor Kenneth Talbot.

Next, some people want to claim I'm "jealous" of Frost.  Really? Why? I left the movement long before he did and I never dreamed of writing a book called "Why I left Full Preterism". Frost and I have NEVER gotten along even while we were both Full Preterist. I don't normally get along well with pompous blowhards no matter what their theological beliefs. THIS is the reason I haven't and still do not interact well with Sam Frost and his ivory-tower elitist buddies. I've never been jealous of Frost. Pitty him? yes. Jealous no.

INTRODUCTION:


Pretended former Full Preterist, Samuel Frost is trying to raise his profile by publishing an 83 page booklet which he was trying to sell $14.95...really? Anyhow, the title of the booklet is "Why I Left Full Preterism" which is fitting for Frost's reputation of being self-serving.  But the problem is, Frost HASN'T really left Full Preterism, he is merely trying to develop another kind of Full Preterism which he and his cronies can better control. The "lay-led" nature of Full Preterism never allowed Frost to achieve his vision of a "systematic" form of Full Preterism. Frost constantly tried to make Full Preterism appear "scholarly"; be it by trying to write papers for the Evangelical Theological Soceity (ETS) or rubbing elbows with so-called scholars like Gary DeMar, Kenneth Talbot and Kenneth Gentry.



In 2010, Frost had to make a very important decision. You see, Frost's P.R. manager; Jason Bradfield left the movement and Frost would be faced with his inability to market himself. Bradfield had spent years developing websites and forums where Frost could promote himself. Without Bradfield, Frost would be voiceless. On top of that, Frost's mentor; Kenneth Talbot who had long been coddling Frost's Full Preterism, even to the point of allowing Frost to help develop student materials for a supposed Christian seminary -- Talbot finally was making a way for Frost to have his cake and eat it too. Talbot was developing a new kind of Full Preterism that he called "Realized Preterism". Talbot even says that his Realized Preterism is "akin to" the kind known Full Preterist David Chilton was teaching (listen to 5 second audio).

So, in 2010 under the guise of claiming Full Preterism is wrong because of the quantitative limitations of infinity -- i.e. there are only so many Elect; Frost claimed he left the Full Preterist movement -- though he told fellow Full Preterist Mike Bennett:

"My eschatology has been modified by my study in FP, to be sure. There are some good insights here and there that I have not left (like my millennial position)" -- April 2012, Frost telling a Full Preterist he has not left everything of Full Preterism -- though he is purposely vague.

Well, I finally received a copy of the booklet Frost wrote (I refused to pay anything for it). What follows is a FREE review of that booklet. First let me say; I left Full preterism in 2006-2007, a full 3-4 years BEFORE Sam Frost.  Further, Frost has said that I have:

"...been the most vicious critic of full preterism to date." and that I am "probably one of the most abhored persons in the history of [Hyper]Preterism".  

Now, if you were going to read an expose against say Mormonism, would you want to read it from a guy who seems to have only left it for self-serving reasons like Frost or from the guy who left 4 years before the self-serving guy and the guy who even the self-serving guy admits is the most vicious critic of the movement???

GENTRY'S GENEROSITY

Kenneth Gentry wrote the forward to Frost's booklet. It is unfortunate since now Gentry's name will forever be attached to a fraud like Frost. But in the Forward, Gentry says that he has counseled pastors not to allow Full Preterists into their churches:

"I warned them that to allow these folks into their churches would be tantamount to conducting a church-slimming seminar." (viii)

Okay, then where was Gentry when Talbot was allowing Frost to help develop student materials for Talbot's supposed Christian seminary? Where has Gentry been when Talbot knowingly enrolled a Full Preterist into his seminary's "ministers" program with the intent to bestow on this fellow a degree that certifies him as a Christian minister. I'm sorry, but out of the box, these men are hypocrites if not out and out liars.

But Gentry, like Talbot is generous with Frost's heresy. While Gentry several times speaks of the "arrogance" within Full Preterism, he never seems to correlate that if they claim Frost was a "shining light" within Full Preterism, then wouldn't that make Frost one of the most arrogant lights? Many people, even full preterists while Frost was still a full preterist would attest to Frost's arrogance then and even now.  That is one thing Frost clearly HASN'T "left".

FROSTIAN SLIP?

In the Forward, Gentry seems to have made a typo or a Freudian Slip of sort when he says:

"In his second chapter, “My Full Preterist Testimony,” Frost shows the dangers of being a good student of the Word and sound in reasoning." (x)

I think he meant, the dangers of not being a good student of the Word and sound in reasoning.  But even so, this brings up an interesting point. Frost, perhaps more than any other Full Preterist leader often would tout his "ahem", scholarly education and how he was using "logic" and "exegesis" to arrive at his Full Preterist conclusions. Supposedly Frost was a "good student of the Word and sound in reasoning" -- at least this is how he promoted himself. Frost claimed while he was a Full Preterist, that he used a "systematic mind" yet Gentry tells us that it is his "systematic mind" that led him out of Full Preterism. Isn't "logic" logic and "exegesis" exegesis? What is Frost now using to refute Full Preterism...if indeed that is what he is really doing?

CREEDAL CORROSION

Gentry speaks of Frost's handling of the creedal and history argument:

"Frost’s third chapter, “History, Creeds, and Sola Scriptura,” is a welcome explanation of the role of creeds in theology. It is also as an important corrective to the errors in the full preterist response to creedalism, which they radically misconstrue. He sets the matter straight regarding creedal orthodoxy. If full preterists would read this chapter, they would discover that Frost unscrews the inscrutable for them. (x)

Well, the TRUTH is that while Frost was a Full Preterist; and I was no longer one, he would spend lots of time lambasting me for using the "historical" argument against him.  To this day there has been no apology, no humility from Frost and his cronies. Not one of them has said, "You know Roderick, we're sorry -- you were right all those years and we were just too arrogant to admit it".  I suspect no apology is forth coming because while Frost and his cronies left the lay-led form of Full Preterism, they have not left their egos. Further, while Frost was still a Full Preterist, he would claim that he was still holding to the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF)...with only slight modification of course, perhaps no more than the Baptist's modify it to the 1689 Baptist Confession. So, the idea that Frost is going to school people in the proper understanding of historical Christianity and the creeds is laughable but sad that Gentry would tell people Frost is going to do so.  The only thing Frost and his fellows do is corrode the confessions and creeds and make them suspect.

The irony in Gentry's warning of how bad Full Preterism is and what a "pile of string" mess it is, is that many people have gone into Full Preterist after reading much of Gary DeMar's works. DeMar is notorious for being ambiguous about the heretical nature of Full Preterism. In fact, while Frost was still a Full Preterist, he called into a radio show where DeMar was being interviewed, and after Frost's typical schmoozing of telling DeMar they once shared a hotel room together -- weird -- Frost asked DeMar point blank if he thought Full Preterism was heresy.  DeMar's answer? NO.  (listen to the 30 second audio) Imagine had DeMar addressed the issue right then instead of letting it drag on for more years.

FROST THE SUBSUMER

One thing Frost is known for is subsuming a person's argument and pretending its his own. Even while he was a Full Preterist, his fellow Full Preterists realized this. Once when Frost was claiming to refute a Full Preterist position called "Covenant Creationism", one reader noted:

"I thought you [Sam] clearly presented a local flood view too. And I thought Tim did a good job of recapping exactly what you stated in your presentation. ok, now I really need some clarification on your [Sam] part concerning the flood and your position."

They couldn't tell much difference between what Frost was presenting and what the Covenant Creationists [Tim Martin] were presenting in respects to a local flood view. Frost does this here in his booklet. After years of chiding me about pointing out that ALL of historical Christianity has agreed 100% on the 4 eschatological views, Frost opens his books with this very argument.

"that they all agree on four points:
1. Christ will return bodily . . .
2. at the end of time and history . . .
3. and raise our bodies . . .
4. and bring full judgment to all.. 

...Regardless, the four things above
unify all of these views, even if they are at a war of words with
each other over the details. My first point is this: Christian
history is unified on these essential matters." (pg 1)

Really??? So, Sam you spent years denying this every time I said it and here you are, making your case on it and charging people $14.95 for it none the less. Again, THIS is why this man is a fraud. There is a reason lots of Full Preterists call Frost "The Librarian", because he does not come up with anything from his own rational conclusions but instead steals them from other people; from something he has read in his library.

FROST THE UN-ORDINARY

Frost as I have pointed out thinks very highly of himself and even that shows in his booklet on page 2 where he says:

"It is probably difficult for most ordinary Christians to grasp such an idea. One scholar noted that the idea is “imbalanced” (Donald Bloesch) and another called it “a bizarre position to hold” (N. T. Wright). To date, hardly any scholars have embraced it (even though, to be fair, it must be noted that Dale Allison once endorsed a full preterist author’s book)." (pg 2)

Again really? This paragraph drips with the elitism that Frost is known for. Um, does he realize then he was "imbalanced"? See, the reason Frost has pretended to leave Full Preterism is so that he can get what he always dreamed of; recognition by his fellow "un-ordinary scholars".  Did Frost suddenly become "balanced" when he claimed he left Full Preterism?

180 TO 1970

When Frost was a Full Preterist, he would argue what is called the "organic development" view of Full Preterism. This relates to the question of the fact that Full Preterism was never taught or believed within historical Christianity in any great example. Frost's fellow Full Preterist, Ed Stevens gave the answer that there was a secret first-century rapture that left only "second-rank" Christians who did not understand what happened, thus it took all these years before Christianity figured out Jesus came in AD70.  But Frost's answer was that Full Preterism had always been latent within Christianity; that it has been taught in bits and pieces, developing organically from existing doctrines.  But now in his booklet, Frost claims Full Preterism didn't really start until the 1970s.  Again, Frost and his cronies used to blast me for making the connection that Full Preterism has more or less grown from a splinter group of Church of Christ Restorationists who believe that the true Church and true Gospel failed to exist and had to be "restored".  This has been my mantra for many years but here is Frost acting like he is the expert to see it:

"There are several versions of full preterism today. This does not make its core teachings wrong, but for a movement that is small, with a very short history, to fragment so rapidly is a legitimate and reasonable “red flag” concern. Is there something inherent in full preterism itself that causes such rapid sectarianism? Is it because it places no authority in the Church and her history (which the Church of Christ historically has no problem with, stating, “no creeds but Christ”) that it promotes radical individualism?" (pg 3)

Frost goes on to say:

"...full preterists, in general, embrace a Trinitarian view of the Godhead (though many actually do not, as we shall see). Most are fairly conservative and even libertarian in their political outlook." (pg 5)

The problem is, Frost himself once said about the doctrine of the Trinity that it didn't come about until it was artificially formulated at the instigation of a heresy:

“Now my question is when did we do this for the second coming of Christ? When have we had these councils & Arius that came up & said ‘Hey, ‘, because afterall we became Trinitarians because there was a guy named Arius who stood up & said, `Hey I think Jesus was the first created being. I don’t think he was an eternal being.’ Then you had a lot of people begin saying, ‘Now wait a minute here.’ & they began to go back to the Scriptures & they began to fight for hundreds of years & they finally came out with what you know we have at Chalcedon..you know Nicean Chalcedon. But somebody rose their hand up & said, ‘Hey can I challenge this?’ & that’s all..that’s what I’m doing I’m asking, ‘Can I challenge this? Can I question -he shall come again and judge the living & the dead- Can we…can I question that? ‘ (hear him actually say it — source)

Frost's convoluted concept of organic development led him to such an outrageous conclusion. Frost has since expunged as many of these outrageous statements as he can, but never apologizing for or explaining his error. But don't worry, we'll see more of these kind of statements from Frost even here in his booklet.

FROST THE FAKE PASTOR

On page 7, Frost mentions that he "pastored" a Full Preterist church for 4 years. The problem is, to this day he claims in his credentials that he was a "pastor". This is dishonest to any Christian that comes across Frost. First, he never tells them in his credentials that he was only ever a self-appointed leader of a group of Full Preterists, he never tells people he was actually "defrocked" by the very people who claimed they "ordained" him. See here: http://unpreterist.blogspot.com/2012/01/talbot-says-sam-frost-isnt-pastor.html

It is like a former Mormon elder presenting himself as having been a "pastor" though he never was ever a Christian pastor. This is yet another example of the fraud of Frost and those willing to promote him.

Frost even tells us how he was finishing a Master of Arts degree at Whitefield Theological Seminary during the time when Frost was most active in the movement, yet the president of Whitefield; Kenneth Talbot never said or did anything publicly to refute full preterism even though Talbot knew full well what his protege was doing all these years. What a great "shepherd" Talbot has been.

FROST VS FATHER TALBOT

My departure from the "anti-preterists", such as Dee Dee Warren came about after a sharp disagreement with Frost's theological "father"; Kenneth Talbot. While those who had been fighting "hyper-preterism" for many years before Talbot was forced by embarrassment to finally address it; Talbot did not argue from the same point as Gentry.  Gentry, as Frost says in his booklet argues that a person must first deal with what Christians right or wrong have been teaching all these years:

"The Creeds came after the Scripture, and if the Creeds are regarded as what the Scriptures teach, then one must first go through the teaching of the Creeds. But, Gentry clearly does not stop there. On that foundation, he adds, 'Only after obtaining such a theological orientation may we move on to consider exegetical and theological issues.'" (pg 15)

Talbot came into the fight arguing the opposite.  When I stated to Talbot that in arguing against Full Preterism we must first start with the proposition of an argument, I meant the same as Gentry; that we must deal with the proposition that Full Preterism by nature is saying that for 2000 years Christianity has been in gross error on eschatology, here is how Talbot responded:

"What do you mean by 'I like to deal first and foremost with the proposition of an argument.' What method does that invoke? Why would not that method include the "exegesis" which is also propositional, and if, it is a part of the argument of your opponent, your previous statement would require you to do what you say you would prefer not to do? This is irrational because you cannot actually avoid the necessary logical implications. Further, why is the propositions of Scripture considered secondary rather than primary? That is a Roman Catholic type argument. How do you prioritize these propositions? I will accept categories, but definitive explanations of how such an arbitrary choice is made is expected. I chose the the "propositions" of the Bible because God says that I must believe His Word. Why do you choose other non-biblical propositions?" -- source

As you can see, not only did Talbot depart from the argumentation that Gentry was using, Talbot basically called Gentry's/my argument a Roman Catholic type argument. This correlates to why so many pretended Reformed folks like Talbot and Frost treat Sola Scriptura like Solo Scriptura. The Bible does not interpret itself in all places. Rather, as even Frost now admits in his booklet via a quotation from Charles Hodge:

"Again, Protestants admit that as there has been an uninterrupted tradition of truth from the protevangelium to the close of the Apocalypse, so there has been a stream of traditionary teaching flowing through the Christian Church from the day of Pentecost to the present time. This tradition is so far a rule of faith that nothing contrary to it can be true. Christians do not stand isolated, each holding his own creed." (pg 10)

But Talbot and Frost as his pupil are followers of "Clarkianism"; a type of theology proposed by the late Gordon Clark that ignores that God has sustained not only truth but the basic understanding of truth among Christians. Rather, like Gentry and so many others, I have argued that Full Preterism is first suspect because it is nothing like any kind of Christianity that has ever been taught or believed. This doesn't make it wrong; but it is the same as a socialist claiming America should be a socialist country even though if America adopted open socialism, it no longer could claim to be the America that has exited for nearly 300 years.

Oddly enough, in his booklet while defending Gentry, Frost accidentally impugns Talbot as Talbot arguing more like a Full Preterist.

"Thus, the argument would run like this: Gentry assumes and presupposes the correctness of the creeds, then reads into the Scriptures what they teach. Rather, I have shown that this construction is mistaken. Gentry first notes that full preterism is not orthodox, then proceeds to show from the Scriptures that the Creeds on this matter are in line with the Scriptures. In actuality, both are doing the same thing. First it is noted by both that full preterism disagrees with the Creeds, then the appeal to Scripture is made...In this matter, then, Gentry is correct to assert that full preterism is a false teaching; one not in line with the councils and Creeds until it is proven otherwise. The burden falls on the full preterist." (pg 19)

As you can see, what Talbot called a "Roman Catholic type argument" is exactly the type of argument I have been using, Gentry has been using, and now with which Frost seems to agree: A presupposition that historical Christianity has correctly as a whole related the Christian doctrine as espoused by Jesus and the apostles themselves. Be careful Frost, you may be kicked out of the Clarkian club!

But it gets worse for Talbot as Frost says:

"The point of those who first note that full preterism is aberrant is done so according to the Creeds. Then, the “exegetical debate” takes place, showing that the Scriptures reflect what the churches in all flavors have decided is essentially true regarding eschatology in their Creeds and Confessions." (pg 20)

Exactly! and exactly my comment to Talbot. I truly believe Talbot's pushing of Clarkianism is one of the major factors that prolonged Frost's stint within Full Preterism. By the way, I point blank asked Gentry if he followed Clarkianism. He was clear and adamant that he does not.

BACK TO THE SEWER

Just when I thought Frost was jettisoning the erroneous Clarkianism instilled in him, in chapter 4 he cites Gordon Clark as one of his favorite Christian philosophers. Also in this chapter Frost cites the so-called "infinity argument".  This was rubric that Frost used to leave Full Preterism; claiming that if God knows all His people (ie the Elect) then there must be some quantitative limitation to who the Elect are. There must be an end to the production of people who could possibly be the Elect. Full Preterism instead sees no end of history and the possibility that the Elect is in "infinite" number. Frost has argued with his fellow Full Preterists, namely David Green that God cannot know infinity since infinity is by nature unknowable (unmeasurable?); thus the Elect cannot be an infinite number of people.

Frost also argues with himself that while a Full Preterist, he and others would point out that if Christ's covenant is an "eternal covenant" with mankind, then it cannot have an end.  But now, Frost argues against this and says since God cannot "logically" know "infinity"; then the Elect must have an limit and the eternal covenant must not really be eternal...at least not as it relates to earthly existence.

The reason I say Frost is returning to the sewer is because it is this Clarkian "logic"; this "Christian philosophizing" that got Frost into this mess in the first place. Here is Frost once again trying to claim that God can't know infinity; that it is "illogical".  Talking snakes, people walking on water, and rising from the dead are also illogical but as Christians we believe it.

The so-called infinity argument is a weak argument against Full Preterism. It is a argument that appears more like an fabricated escape hatch than a legitimate reason to leave something Frost was part of for over 15 years.

Frost spends the rest of the chapter trying to walk back the concepts where the Bible clearly talks about infinite and infinity and eternal, such as the eternal kingdom of Christ that has no end (Eph 3:21) as merely hyperbole.  He has not answered the Full Preterist questions but merely Clarkian'ed them away with bad logic.

ALL OR NOTHING

After trying to dismiss concepts of infinite and eternal as merely hyperbole, Frost turns to the issue of the Resurrection of the believers and begins his case with trying to argue for the word "all" and the phrase "every one" in John 6:39-40 as limiting the Resurrection to again, an finite amount of people and a specific time frame.  The problem both Frost the Clarkian "Christian philosopher" and the Full Preterists have is Jesus' conversation with Martha.  Martha in John 11:23-26 was expressing the typical Jewish concept of a one-time resurrection at "the end".  Jesus appeared to correct her, as He did to Nicodemus in John 3:1-16, that there was a resurrection to new life at the very moment of belief..

The Full Preterist misses that people didn't have to wait until AD70 to be resurrected and the anti-preterist like Frost misses that people don't have to wait until the future.

So, Frost here is guilty of the very thing he and Gentry accused Full Preterists of -- making words and phrases mean all or nothing. Resurrection means more than an one time event, whether it was in the past or the future.

You can see Frost's error plain enough when he chides the Full Preterists; though Frost himself argues for a two-staged resurrection he then says:

"Therefore, according to the full preterist, we were raised in AD 70. But this means we were raised once with Christ in His resurrection, and then we were raised again in AD 70!" (pg 32)

So wait, why can Frost advocate a two-staged resurrection and the Full Preterist cannot? I'm not advocating a two-staged resurrection, but that resurrection actually begins at the moment of regenerative belief.  And in fact Jesus DOES say we are raised, not even just in His resurrection, but at the very moment of belief; even before Jesus was crucified. What does this do to all of Frost's Clarkian "philosophizing"?

SAME AS THE OTHER

I'm sorry, knowing that Frost once said that Christians are only Trinitarians because of Arius, to read Frost trying to talk in chapter 6 about the function of the Holy Spirit is simply hypocritical. The man cannot with a serious face talk about the Holy Spirit. But even more hypocritical is when Frost tries to equate that Dispensationalism and Full Preterism are the same in approach. This is something I have pointed out to Frost and his cronies for years; that many Full Preterists are birthed from an over-reaction to Dispensationalism. This is also another reason why it is important that DeMar in his "ministry" against Dispensationalism also helps people avoid Full Preterism; a responsibility DeMar has repeatedly told me is not his to bear; despite the fact so any Full Preterists cite DeMar's material as their gateway into Full Preterism.

Frost continues to try to make the correlation between the Dispensationalists and the Full Preterists as the same as the other but a different side of the same coin.

But maybe there is hope for Frost if he could ever stop being a man-pleaser for just a moment.  Look what he says here:

"There are some who are not full preterists that disagree with the assessment of “last days” [being yet future]. Rather, they, very much like the full preterist, interpret this phrase as leading up to the end of the age, AD 70." (pg 36)

Compare this with DeMar's own statement:

"By taking the time texts seriously, assessing the historical context of the period, and relying on how the Bible applies its well-known symbols to make theological points, we can come to no other conclusion than that Jesus was revealing to John prophetic events that were 'about to come upon the whole world' (Rev 3:10) in his day. There is no need for either sophisticated technology or reading into the Bible to see things that just aren't there. This creates a future fulfillment of events that the Bible clearly says are to happen "shortly" (Rev 1:1,3)" -- End Times Fiction pgs 170-171

Who sounds more like a Full Preterist? Frost or DeMar? But that is not all for DeMar.  He also once said:

"... I'm willing to listen to what others say on an issue, especially on eschatology since it's been a garbled mess for centuries. It's conceivable that so-called eschatological heretics are seeing something I'm not seeing. They're willing to take the risk. Many are not." -- source

If Frost had any guts, he'd take on DeMar and Talbot as the very enablers of Full Preterism but he won't because like Talbot and DeMar; Frost hasn't really left Full Preterism nor do they really oppose it. They want to create and control their own version of Full Preterism. They want to make it more "scholarly" and respectable. Not ran by a bunch of uneducated non-seminarians "common Christians" with a Bible.

A THOUSAND CONTRADICTIONS

On page 37 Frost attempts to interact with 2 Peter 3:8, a signature proof-text used against Full Preterism:

"Peter’s apparent deus ex machina response is God’s sovereignty: 24 hours to us is like 365,000 days to Him, and 365,000 days to us is like 24 hours to him. In other words, although God created time and certainly can tell time, God is not obligated to time as if it is his master! Time is God’s servant." (pg 37)

So wait, why does Frost here get to tell his readers that God is not obligated to...well, hold to a logical construct like time but earlier Frost ridiculed people for saying God could comprehend infinity? Why is God a servant to infinity? Because Gordon Clark the "Christian philosopher" says so? Why is it not a contradiction or apparent paradox for God to comprehend time differently than mankind? Why can't God just say what He means and mean what He says about time? Can't God explain time in a manner that we little humans can comprehend even if it is a large number?  Frost is picking and choosing his "logical" deductions here and there.  This is the reason his infinity argument is a weak argument against Full Preterism as we see he has undermined it in the very same 83 page "small book" in which he presents it.

What if we take Frost's contradictory argumentation, not just here but other places to say that no one really has "eternal" life. That must be merely "hyperbole". God only meant that they get to live longer than usual. Maybe God was saying, "If you follow my precepts, you will live longer than other people who will die from bad decisions".  See, now I am a "philosopher"...but with that kind of Clarkian argument, I wouldn't be much of a Christian.

But the contradiction doesn't end there. Frost is the master of arguing against himself and not realizing it. After citing his infinity argument as the key to his leaving Full Preterism, he says this on page 40:

"Yes, the Bible speaks of the “end of the [previous] ages” in Paul’s day. We can mark AD 70 as an “end of an age.” But, it didn’t end all ages. There are more to come. But, there is an eventual end to all of them. Eternity came before the ages began. Eternity will be after the ages finally come to the “last.” (pg 40)

How does Frost propose to even speak of "eternity". Eternity has no beginning or end.  Has God existed before eternity? Is there such a thing as "before eternity"? Frost cannot help but convolute, his Clarkian roots are rotten to the core. It is not that I don't want Frost to combat Full Preterism, but like Talbot Frost has no idea what he is talking about.  As a matter of fact, Frost once explained how he became of Full Preterist.  He admitted he was a novice and that he "didn't know what he was getting into". Source: http://unpreterist.blogspot.com/2011/10/kenneth-talbot-and-sam-frost-advise.html  I submit Frost was and still is a novice.  Not because he hasn't read a lot or spoken a lot, but because he doesn't really understand what he is reading even now.  Otherwise how could he say he was so "logical" and "systematic", and "scholarly" but fell into such an apparent heresy as "hyperpreterism" and remain there 4 years longer than I -- a guy who has never claimed to be some "shining light".  Again, Frost is a fraud, clear and simple; then and now.  The only difference is now Gentry and DeMar and others who are supposed to be "orthodox Christians" are aiding and abetting the fraud, even to the point of telling people Frost is a "pastor".


TIME TEXTING WHILE DRIVING

In chapter 7, Frost berates the Full Preterist as playing a shell game and starting with the "time-texts" because they can't start with other doctrines.  Huh?? Why would they? I mean, determining the context; the time context of events is paramount. We can talk about resurrection or the ascension of Christ all we want but what does that mean without some sort of time perspective? Frost is really losing his footing here.

Frost seems to ignore that not all Full Preterists have a spiritual only resurrection, to conform with the time-texts of first-century "end". For example Ed Stevens would place a bodily resurrection of individual believers in the past.  Stevens does not spiritualize the resurrection.  Frost is either purposely being dishonest or hoping his readers have such little knowledge of Full Preterism compared to his "authority to speak on it" that he can get away with this gross misrepresentation.

And actually, when it comes to the time-texts, DeMar and Gentry have done far more work on getting people to look at time before nature than any other writers; full preterist or not. Where they go wrong though is telling people that the "imminent" return of Christ was fulfilled in the Judgment on Jerusalem.  This is patently wrong and leads the Full Preterist to rightly claim the "Partial-Preterists" are as heretical as they; in that they postulate three comings of Christ.  Rather, the time-texts can be maintained if we understand that it was not the heir that came in judgment on Jerusalem, but the Father/Land owner (see Mt 21:33-43).  When I pointed this out to Gentry, he brushed me off with the claim that God and Jesus are the same person so it isn't important to make the distinction who actually came in judgment.  Thus, there you have it -- a "scholar" who cares not to make theological distinctions even if it clarifies doctrine. The persona of the Trinity is once again convoluted.

Jesus did indeed "come" but as Dan 7:13 and Mt 26:64 say, He came TO THE FATHER. Jesus wasn't "about to come" back, not even in judgment.  He was about to come into the glory of the Father; into vindication proving He indeed is the Messiah.  That was the entire point of the rejection by the Jews; that they didn't want Him to be the Messiah.  By killing Him, they thought they were either able to put an end to a liar or a least thwart God plans as much as the "wicked vinedressers" in Mt 21 thought they could.

So, indeed the time-texts are very important to discuss. Frost's flippant attempt to dismiss this starting point reeks more of a "Talbotian" attempt to dismiss dealing with presuppositions first as if it was merely a "Roman Catholic argument". Frost is following in the foot steps of his elitist, ivory-tower mentors who think they are above "ordinary Christians".


FROST 2:15

Now we get to the point where Frost's convoluted Clarkian philosophy and years under the tutelage of Talbot have lead him.  Frost takes major liberties with the Bible and what it actually says. For example he says:

"Satan was able to utilize this fact in his temptation. They knew what death meant, and he comes along and states the opposite: “God will not kill you. He just made you. You don’t even have children yet!” Adam tempted the Lord. When it was seen that Eve did not die, he took the same piece of fruit and ate." (pg 57)

Really? Where in the Bible does it say that Satan ever told Adam and Eve God wouldn't kill them because they didn't have children yet? Where does it say Adam ate the fruit only after he saw Eve didn't die? This is a major doctrinal rewrite. Frost is known for this kind of reasoning, before and after his pretended departure from Full Preterism.

Okay, one last ribbing of Frost before I conclude :-)  -- He used the word or a derivative of "scholar" about 19 times in his 83 page booklet.  Doesn't much help his reputation of wanting to be seen as an "un-ordinary and scholarly Christian".

CONCLUSION

While I was very direct and unrelenting in this expose of Frost's small book, and though I have been perhaps his main archenemy over the years; due to his ego, I do sincerely hope that Frost has truly left Full Preterism. I do hope that his booklet will cause some people to leave the movement or never join it. It is my prayer and desire that Frost will take less time trying to be the smartest guy in the room and more time simply being humble; realizing that even "ordinary" Christians can and have arrived at truth BEFORE him. That people, not just me, DID LEAVE Full preterism long before Frost.  We didn't write a book and try to sell it for $14.95 but are willing to talk with anyone openly and for FREE about our experiences within Full Preterism -- some of us were Full Preterists way before Frost even entered the movement.

Why I and some others left Full Preterism before Frost is difficult to say.  Perhaps it is because we were less beholden to it. We didn't act like we were "shining lights" within it. We didn't speak at a bunch of conferences. We didn't have a bunch of followers -- and still don't. We didn't have enablers coddling us and calling us "brother" as Talbot did all those years to Frost. But for whatever reason, Frost couldn't see his way out until 2010. Let's hope it is for real.

I'd like to see Frost do more to undo his damage than to delete it from all memory. He needs to slow down pretending he is the "orthodox guy" who can best explain what it means to be orthodox.  Further, people need to go slow with Frost.  As we saw in this review of his booklet, he still has a lot to work out.

Anyhow, thank God for Frost's supposedly leaving Full Preterism.  Let it be so Lord.