CORRECTING SAM FROST’S MANY MISTAKES ABOUT THE PRESTON/MCDURMON DEBATE, THE “ALREADY AND NOT YET” HIS DISPENSATIONAL PARALLELS, CONTRADICTIONS & FALSE WITNESS AND WHAT HE HAS WRITTEN ABOUT PARTIAL PRETERIST MOTIVES 

By:  Michael J. Sullivan

I wanted to briefly address some things Sam Frost has recently been writing on his web site and on American Vision’s site about me, the Preston/McDurmon debate, hermeneutics on the “already and not yet,” Full Preterism being compared to Dispensationalism and his “motives.”

[1]    

1)  My first observation is that “notice” how Sam will not engage with me on anything having to do with Scripture John 4—5:28-29/Dan. 12:2-3, 12/Matt. 25:31-46/Rev. 20:5-13. 

2) Frost claims I “cherry-pick” between Amillennial and Partial Preterist authors.  But Sam uses my very hermeneutic and historical approach in forming his AD 30-AD 70 millennial view of Revelation 20  —– and then wants to condemn me for using this approach broadly or for using the same hermeneutical and historical approach when in interpreting Rev. 20:5-13?!? The hypocrisy and irony here is rich indeed!

3) Sam ignorantly and arrogantly claims no one else understands the “already and not yet” the way he, McDurmon and other scholars such as Beale do. Oh please, and on that note let’s proceed to our next point….

4) Sam please provide a quote from Beale or anyone else who concedes as McDurmon did in the debate — that the clearly understood eschatological “not yet” resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3, 13/John 5:28-29 and parousia of 1 Cor. 15 “could be applied/fulfilled in AD 70″?!? Please refer me to the commentator who says Paul has an AD 70 fulfillment in view and a “fully fulfilled” view too in Romans 8:18-23YLT/WEY/AV.  And on the issue of Romans 8:18-23YLT/WEY/AV, Sam has called me a “liar” publicly on his site for insinuating his motives for leaving FPism for PPism.  And yet all I do is quote him as I will do here and let the reader decide:

“John Murray, who wrote the classic, Redemption: Accomplished and Applied, and Reformed theological giant (his textbook was required reading at Whitefield), wrote “The inclusive character of redemption as it affects sin and its accompanying evil is shown perhaps most clearly by the fact that the ESCHATOLOGICAL CONSUMMATION of the WHOLE REDEMPTIVE PROCESS is referred to as THE REDEMPTION (Luke 21:28; Romans 8:23; Eph. 1:14…) – p.46

See, Murray, following Reformed theology, places THE REDEMPTION (“the” is in 8:23 and Luke 21:28 – THE redemption) together. There was not A redemption in A.D. 70, then, ANOTHER redemption in the future. There is not A redemption of the soul, then later, A redemption of the body. No, no, no. Redemption, the fullness of it, comes at the consummation. But, we conclude, that

Luke 21:28 is CLEARLY referring to Jerusalem’s demise. Therefore, what Paul sought as “eagerly expecting” and the “glory ABOUT TO BE revealed in us” was THE redemption of the THE Body.

Folks, anyone that tells you different is speaking a falsehood. The Bible is PLAIN on this point. The only thing shaking you up is TRADITION and THEOLOGY from that TRADITION. The texts Mike has outlined here are clear. A ploughman can see it. A mechanic can see it. A janitor (me) can see it. The more and more this is presented, the more and more those hardened against it will become unless they submit to God’s word. This is what the Bible teaches: the Redemption has come, therefore, the Body has been redeemed. Period. Deal with it. Do whatever you have to do to “square” that with your Tradition so that you can “feel” okay. But, don’t deny it. The Redemption has occured. The Bible says this LOUD AND CLEAR. To continue to ignore it, or pass by it, or twist it, or argue against only puts yourself at odds with God’s word. You may find favor with man, sure…….but is that worth it?”

[Sam]

“I want to also apologize to Mike Sullivan, Dave Green and Ed Hassert. I almost was sucked in, guys. Almost. I see your point on Isaiah 65, and Dave, I see your point on the questions.” (Quote from following link http://thereignofchrist.com/2009/09/ban-on-preterist-blog/

[Sam]

“I owe you an apology, Dave.  I just wrote, http://thereignofchrist.com/2009/09/ban-on-preterist-blog/ 

(which of course he and Jason deleted) I owe Mike one, too.  And Ed.  I got greedy.  These constant attacks from Nut job Dee Dee Warren, Roderick supposedly stepping down, Dr. Talbot…all of it….I went after something that was not there, and my hand got hacked off.  I have such a strong bend in me to get along with others….I believe in peace.  I hate arguing.  I was wrong about those guys….they are not Christians, as far as I am concerned.  They may be, who knows, but it is not the Christianity I care for.  I am a Full Preterist.  I see your point.  There is no prophecy not fulfilled.  I stress effects, but realize salvation as the fulfillment.  Sorry guys……the pressure here is great….every day, sam frost, sam frost, sam frost………..I want to move ahead.  I am a Full Preterist.  Period.  It’s what the Bible teaches.”

Now folks it is sad that Sam now laughs while interviewing Joel McDurmon about having a “hard” heart and not “submitting” to God’s “clear” word in these matters – turning from what he knows the Bible teaches on “fulfillment” because he wants to “get along” and “find favor with man”/Partial Preterists. 

Sam recently attempted to deal with these comments but got his dates all wrong along with trying to spin his words.  So after we gave the proper dates that proved our case Sam was advised to not address this matter or this article in general.  I of course totally understand. Here again is the timeline which David Green has provided:

7/20/09:  House Divided was released.

8/9/09, THREE WEEKS AFTER THE BOOK WAS RELEASED: 
Sam revealed that he believed that Isaiah 65:17ff is not yet fulfilled.  He said that preterists take “a Gnostic approach” to that chapter.

8/18/09, A MONTH AFTER THE BOOK WAS RELEASED, Sam
made this hyper-ecumenical statement:  “Four, we do not deny the substitutionary THEORY of atonement. Brian might want to check his
church history here, but the fathers held to a variety of beliefs (theories) of Atonement.” 

Two days later, Dr. Talbot got Sam to publicly declare that full preterism and Reformed theology are incompatible, prompting Sharon
Nichols to reject full preterism.  But when asked, Sam offered a nebulous interpretation of what he meant by his statement.

9/2/09, A MONTH AND A HALF AFTER THE BOOK WAS
RELEASED:  Sam publicly announced that he “may not endorse . . .Full Preterism,” and that partial preterists are “Biblical Preterists.”  But
when asked, Sam offered a nebulous interpretation of what he meant by his statement.  The next day, Sam issued this public statement:  “I want
to also apologize to Mike Sullivan, Dave Green and Ed Hassert. I almost was sucked in, guys. Almost. I see your point on Isaiah 65. . . . ”  (Sam’s
apology has since been deleted.)

Then everything died down and was relatively peaceful for eight months, until 5/10/10.  That’s when Sam revealed that he is relying on Greek
philosophy (an argument about infinity) instead of Scripture to derive his presuppositions about Yahweh.

Then, after eight months of making radically contradictory statements and being unable to answer a thousand questions about his new doctrines,
Sam finally got completely “sucked in,” and took the full Talbotian plunge on 1/11/11.  He outright rejected biblical preterism on the basis of the
Greek infinity argument –or as he called it, “the lightning bolt.”
 

Sam wrote that PP men like Gentry (and by extension DeMar and McDurmon) know they “could lose [their] job[s]” if they “connected the dots” of Scripture (HD, 228).  Therefore, the reverse can be said that one would leave FPism for PPism in order to find a job!  McDurmon arrogantly admits that someone had to “pay him well” in order to debate the small FP view – as if his Father-in-law’s (Gary North’s) Postmillennial Partial Preterist Reconstructionist movement numbers in the hundreds of thousands – lol!  American Vision was desperate for an image change hoping everyone will stop thinking that their writings produce “Hyper-Preterists,” therefore they published Sam’s little thin book on why he left FPism.  And Sam is talking about writing on other issues in order to “get along” and please his new handlers – looking for a “well paying” job and wanting his cut of the “Inconsistent Orthodoxy” pie too no doubt!  Other Talbot disciples encourage Sam’s over inflated ignorant arrogance heading in this direction, “Sam, BTW, is there any truth to the rumor your latest book has outsold “House Divided”?” 

Sam is NOT even addressing important passages when it comes to “connecting the dots” and when he does attempt to develop his novel understanding of the eschatological and theological “already and not yet” – it is horribly crashing and burning! 

Sam still persists that everyone needs to look to him and read him because he used to be a FP expert of some kind and that we shouldn’t be reading his former material and insinuating motives etc…  And yet what has North written about the sell-out and dancing bear Thomas Ice who once held to North’s views?  And am I really insinuating motives and a “liar” by simply quoting Sam’s own confession and former writings on the subject?!?              

5)  Sam also persists with the irony of trying to connect Dispensationalism with Full Preterism – lol. I can’t think of two diametrically opposed views on both the time and nature of fulfillment. The classic Amillennial view and early creeds condemned the Premillennialism and Postmillennialism and their views of the kingdom of God on the earth as “heretical” and on par with “Jewish myths.”

[2]  And the facts actually ARE that when it comes to the “already and not yet” FPism would have more in common with the classic creedal Amillennial view than Premillennial Dispensationalism concerning the eschatological “not yet” of the “already and not yet” in exegeting Scriptures such as Daniel 12:2-3, 13/Matthew 13:39-43/Matthew 24-25/1 Thessalonians 4-5/1 Corinthians 15/Revelation 20-22:

a.  ONE Second Coming/Parousia…

b.  ONE end time harvest at the end of the age…

c.  ONE judgment of the living and dead...

d.  ONE de-creation/passing/fleeing of the old heaven and earth and arrival of the new.   

 
But let’s answer the fool according to his folly and state that the truth of course is both Premillennial Dispensationalism and Postmillennial Partial Preterism have to adopt a TWO coming theory (a rapture before the second coming or “a” AD 70 parousia followed by an end of time one) to prop up their bogus views and artificial systems – eisegetically imposing them upon the Bible – creating TWO salvations and hopes – one for Israel (one in the past and one in the future) and another one for the Church!  Selah. 

Then you have Postmillennial Partial Preterist Keith Mathison who wants futurists to take a look at Richard Pratt’s postponement theory view in attempts to get rid of NT imminence as a legitimate view and possibility.  In short, Pratt’s view is that the NT could have correctly taught a first century imminent Second Coming and consummation of the kingdom promises, but there was not enough repentance and belief in that generation so Christ’s imminent Second Coming and Kingdom got “postponed.”  This of course is taking a page right out of and teaching classic Dispensational postponement theology/theory 101.  Dispensationalism teaches that Jesus was offering an imminent consummation to all of Israel’s OT Scriptures, but because of a lack of faith and repentance for that generation, these promises got postponed to a future generation.  

David A. Green’s Material on Sam’s Contradictions and False Witness Against FPism:

David Green continues to produce good material on Talbot-Sam’s contradictions and false statement of Full Preterism on his preteristcosmos yahoo list group (which I encourage everyone to be a part of).

 [David Green] wrote:

 Talbot-Sam in his new book, Why I Sold Out My Conscience:
“If the Spirit is still doing these things, then we are living in the
‘last days,’ when the ‘springs of living waters’ flow into our hearts
 . . .The full preterist argument . . . .[is that] this unique role of the
Spirit concluded then [AD 70] as well.” (p. 21)

My response:
No full preterist (that I know of) says that the “pure river of water
of life” in Revelation 22:1-2 ceased in AD 70.  It is an eternal river
among men.  On either side of it, the tree of life heals the nations. 
This is “for ever and ever” (Rev. 22:5).

Talbot-Sam in his new book, Why I Sold Out My Conscience (continued):
“Yes, there will be judgments (‘he shall judge between the nations’), and
Jerusalem in AD 70 was certainly one of them that was expected to occur
within the lifetime of that generation. However, to exhaust the full reach
and spectrum that consumed the Old Testament prophets with such a short
period of time as the full preterists do is to strain credibility.” (p. 22)

God’s Word:
“That upon you [scribes and Pharisees] may come all the righteous blood
shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of
Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the
altar.  Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this
generation” (Matt. 23:35-36).

” . . . [A] short work will the Lord make upon the earth” (Rom. 8:28).

Talbot-Sam in his new book, Why I Sold Out My Conscience (continued):
“Here again, an end of previous ages is announced. But, is that the end of all
ages. Nope. The end of past ages brings about more ages to come. . . . Ages
come and go.” (p. 25, 26)

My response:
No full preterist (that I know of) says that there are no more ages after AD 70:

“To Him is the glory in the church in Christ Jesus, to all the generations
of the age of the ages. Amen” (Eph. 3:21).
 
Talbot-Sam in his new book, Why I Sold Out My Conscience (continued):
“Both views [corporate body view and individual resurrection view] have the
Old Testament saints transferred from Hades to Heaven. That’s not really an
issue, since a good deal of the early church fathers held to that as well.” (p.
29)

My response:
Exactly.  “A good deal of the early church fathers held to” the full preterist
understanding of the Resurrection of the Dead.  Their error was in not
exegetically categorizing their full preterist doctrine according to their full
preterist presuppositions.

Talbot-Sam in his new book, Why I Sold Out My Conscience (continued):
“If AD 70 was the last trumpet, then God no longer acts in history.” (p. 33)

My response:
In reality, the prophets speak throughout Scripture of history continuing after
the full establishment of the eternal Messianic Kingdom (Isa. 54:14-17; Zech.
14:16-19; etc.).
 
Talbot-Sam in his new book, Why I Sold Out My Conscience (continued):
“ [With the rapture] Paul is speaking about the last act of God.” (p. 41)

My response:
In reality, Scripture never speaks of God ceasing to act in history.
 
Talbot-Sam in his new book, Why I Sold Out My Conscience (continued):
“For the full preterist, heaven is the ultimate goal, not heaven on earth.” (p. 43)

My response:
 In reality, full preterists believe that the heavenly Holiest of Holies, which
came down “out of heaven from God,” is forever on Earth.  Since the fall of
the earthly house, the Church is, with finality, the “Tabernacle of God among
men.”

Talbot-Sam in his new book, Why I Sold Out My Conscience (continued):
“Man was meant to live in the created world forever.” (p. 45)

 My response:
That is essentially what full preterism teaches:   “All generations [of mankind
on Earth] forever and ever” (Ps. 49:11).

Talbot-Sam in his new book, Why I Sold Out My Conscience (continued):
“Notice this: he (Abraham himself) would ‘posses the land.’ . . . This is
heavenly derived land—heaven on earth. . . . If Abraham does not stand
again (resurrection) [on earth] in the land God had given him as an
everlasting possession, then God has failed.” (p. 47)

My response:
That is so weak and “dispensationalistic” (and Jewish and Islamic), it is
embarrassing.  It’s hard to believe they’re serious when they say that. 

The weak and beggarly principle of Talbotism:  Any absurdity or error
must be transformed into truth if it is perceived as an effective defense
against full preterism.

Talbot-Sam in his new book, Why I Sold Out My Conscience (continued):
“It does not mean that we are ‘partially saved’, or that our ‘souls’ are saved,
but later on our ‘bodies’ will be saved. This is the straw man a full preterist
will bring up. Rather, salvation is at work ‘daily’ in our lives here on earth
as we individually and collectively are conformed to his image.” (p. 62)

My response:
So the physical bodies of believers, over the past 2,000 years of generations,
have been becoming more and more molecularly conformed to the glorified
physical body of Christ in heaven?  So believers have an incandescent glow
today that they did not have 2,000 years ago?  Are we going to start waking
through walls soon?  It’s “a fair question.”

Talbot-Sam in his new book, Why I Sold Out My Conscience (continued):
“. . . [T]he costs for becoming a full preterist are far greater than I first
imagined.” (66)

My response:
Talbot-Sam hit the nail on the head with that statement!

Talbot-Sam, 03/06/11:  “It is of no use to continue to bolster this
movement as if it were growing in any substantial manner. . . . “

“For which of you, intending to build a [movement], sitteth not down first,
and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?  Lest haply,
after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that
behold it begin to mock him, Saying, This man began to build, and was
not able to finish” (Lk. 14:28-30).

Talbotian False Witness (Talbot-Sam):
King’s arguments on this point are built on several
assumptions that I shared with him. . . . One of them
was what I had received as a child: “last days”
“fulfillment” “restoration” “resurrection” comes as
an “all at once, all at one time” package.

More sobering scholarship, however, understands
progression (“already/not yet”).  Even the Libs get
this.  But, it throws the FP and the Dispensationalist. 
They can’t seem to wrap their minds around it. 
Why?  Because they have this “all at once” and it
“all means the same” mentality.  There is only “one
event”.  There can’t be an unfolding of events. . . .

The Truth:
* No full preterist denies “progression (‘already/not yet’).”  
* No full preterist denies an “unfolding of events.” 
* No full preterist teaches “all at once, all at one time,” “one event.” 

Talbot-Sam continued:
FP is in a state of crisis because it is trying to make
a past fulfillment applicable TODAY.  

Response:
If a crisis results from making a past fulfillment applicable today, then the Gospel of the Cross is in crisis.  

In reality of course, futurism is in a state of Crisis.  The puffed up gobbledygook and hate (False Witness) of Talbotism are telltale manifestations of that Crisis.

Talbot-Sam (7/14/11):
If resurrection (the TIME) is absolutely FULLfilled
(and, thus, over with), then how do you extend
spiritual resurrection beyond the time (ad 70)?

Talbot-Sam (7/26/12):
“Fullfillment” does not mean “abrogation”. It means
bringing the object in question to its realization and
ultimate intended meaning.

Conclusion: 

The Preston/McDurmon debate went as I predicted and expected – Joel McDurmon out of desperation to answer FP arguments would be sucked in by what he has in common with Sam Frost in preparation for the debate – a desire to get “paid well” and the MANY CONFUSING SCHOLARLY VOICES these men boast of having run through their heads – would once again cause them to concede points and passages to us (John 5:28-29/1 Cor. 15/Rev. 20) — which CONTINUE to lead their readers into the Full Preterist movement.  Whoever paid McDurmon “very well” for even his admitted ONE month study (out of 10) – it was money well spent and will prove to be great advertisement for the Full Preterist movement in the years to come. 

Frost continues to be confused on the eschatological “already and not yet” contradicting himself at times and bearing false witness (with the rest of Talbots disciples) of Full Preterism in attempts at getting his piece of the “Inconsistent Orthodox” pie – seeking the validation and praise of men – per him.