By Samuel L. Frost
“with some, this puts me out of the Full Preterist camp – which I could really give two hoots about”
Samuel Frost‘s view that the kingdom came in the first century and yet that Jesus is now conquering the world through the gospel is much closer to traditional Christianity, and appears to have the endorsement of Dr. Talbot. If Sam’s “Ongoing Fulfillment” relates to the conquest of the Gospel over all nations, kings and religions, does that qualify as Full Preterism?
Mike Sullivan, David Green, Ed Hassertt: SAM FROST’S DEPARTURE FROM FULL PRETERISM INTO THE PARTIAL PRETERIST / PRETERIST IDEALIST WORLD OF TALBOT (9/10/2010) “In Sam’s end of the world article he claimed that Full Preterist’s understand the long ages of Isaiah 65 as teaching “spiritual abundance.” I followed this up with asking Sam if this meant that he changed his interpretation of the passage (to the FP one), or if he was being misleading in that he was still holding onto a PP Postmillennial (PPP) hermeneutic (it is spiritual [“spiritual abundance”] AND literal – the long ages will be seen as the passage is “fully manifested/fulfilled” over time). Again, Sam dodged the question. How scholarly, respectful, and loving.”
Sam Frost: “no Preterist has been able to say to me that ‘nothing changes’ when we physically die. In other words, it is correct to say ‘I am glorified’ today in the Body of Christ, as He is Glorified. However, is this glorification FULLY MANIFEST or APPARENT today? Now, ask yourself: will it be in heaven when I physically die? Will anything change? Will I still be the same, old bumbling Sam Frost that I am here on earth? Will I still be subject to occasional sin? Error? If not, why not? Do I get ‘something else’ in Heaven? It is not so much that we ‘get’ something else, but that that which WE HAVE (II Cor. 5.1-2) will be ENTIRELY in FULL OPERATION – FULL ON POWER. If this, then, is so, then one must concede the argument of ‘fullfillment already – manifestation not yet’ (my argument in a nutshell).”
1. The kingdom would come as a mustard seed in the Parousia in AD 70.
2. Then after the Parousia in AD 70, the kingdom will grow for untold thousands of years until it finally “fill[s] all the earth,” in fulfillment of Daniel 2:35 and other prophecies.
Does a view of the Kingdom’s arrival on Earth in the first century set the stage for future consummation? Were ALL of His enemies crushed beneath His feet when the Kingdom came, or was that just the beginning of the march of the conquest of the King and His Word now that there was a new player on the historical scene? Cf. Paganism vs. Christianity in past; Islam in future:
Islam and Bible Prophecy : A Case Study in the “Eventual Gospel Universalism” of J.S. Russell, David Chilton, and Samuel Frost
David Chilton on “Eventual Gospel Universalism” Here is Chilton before his conversion to full preterism (if his view qualifies.. that is what is under dispute regarding Sam’s theology) and after:
(Before) “”It is certainly true that righteousness does not dwell in the earth in an absolute sense; nor will this world ever be absolutely righteous, until the final enemy is defeated at the Second Coming of Christ.. according to God’s promise, the saving knowledge of Him will yet fill the earth, as the waters cover the sea.” (Days of Vengeance, 544)
(After) “Once the Lord came to destroy the scaffolding of the Old Covenant structure, the New Covenant Temple would be left in its place, and the victorious march of the Church would be unstoppable. According to God’s predestined design, the world will be converted; the earth’s treasures will be brought into the City of God, as the Paradise Mandate (Gen. 1:27-28; Matt. 28:18-20) is consummated (Rev. 21:1-27).” (from “New Heavens and Earth“)
DOES SUCH A GRAND FUTURE EXPECTATION (THE “PARADISE MANDATE” YET TO BE CONSUMMATED) STILL QUALIFY AS FULL PRETERISM? IF THE BIBLE ANTICIPATES WORLD-WIDE CONVERSION.. WOULDN’T THAT BE A PROPHECY AS OF YET UNFULFILLED?
If “eventual gospel universalism” is true, then should we expect CHRIST’S TRIUMPHANT MARCH TO FIND FULFILLMENT IN THE FALL OF ISLAM? – Is Christianity expected to conquer over Islam on Earth one day? What would Bible prophecy suggest regarding the outcome of the ‘Sovereign status’ duel between Jesus and Mohammed? Is Jesus’ kingdom of this world, or is He solely interested in saving souls while His competitors pillage His people? (Fb Port)
Let the saints be joyful in glory;
Let them sing aloud on their beds.
Let the high praises of God be in their mouth,
And a two-edged sword in their hand,
To execute vengeance on the nations,
And punishments on the peoples;
To bind their kings with chains,
And their nobles with fetters of iron;
To execute on them the written judgment—
This honor have all His saints.
12/2009: Sam Frost changes his Isaiah 65 theology: “With that stated, and with a now firm conviction that Isaiah 65 has been entirely fulfilled (thanks Mike, Dave), I still see no logical reason for the extension of the effects of fulfillment (and neither do they) in the here and now in terms of bettering our world, our environment, and our heritage and goverments.” http://preterismdebate.ning.com/profiles/blogs/eclectic-preterism?xg_source=activity
8/30/9: Mike Sullivan Rebuts Sam Frost’s Theology “Beloved, do not be deceived, is not biblical “preterism” rightly being taught concerning the timing and nature of God’s completed redemptive plan for man that many of us have come to know and love. It is carnal futurism both in the timing and nature of fulfillment – plain and simple. ” / Full Preterist Dave Green’s Response: “900 year old naked men taming vegetarian lions while their kids play with cobras. lol Sounds like something the Beatles would have written while they were on LSD. :)”
This will be a simple article. I am reading a great deal on Isaiah 65:17-ff. As a Preterist, we affirm the fulfillment of the passage (and I stress the ongoing fulfillment of this passage in terms of its gradual effects upon the creation – with some, this puts me out of the Full Preterist camp – which I could really give two hoots about)
However, what does a Bible student do when he reads this comment on verse 20?:
“No more shall there be an infant or graybeard Who does not live out his days. He who dies at a hundred years Shall be reckoned a youth, And he who fails to reach a hundred Shall be reckoned accursed.”
This is what one respected commentary wrote, “This does not imply that death will still be present (contradicting 25:7-8)” (Motyer, J. Alec, The Prophecy of Isaiah, IVP, 1993, in loc.).
Yet, when the student reads another famous commentary, we find, “What is most remarkable in the description is that death and sin are represented as still continuing. Death was spoken of as swallowed up in victory in one of the earlier descriptions of Messiah’s kingdom (25:8)” (Rawlinson, George Isaiah: Volume II The Pupit Commentary, in loc.).
Now, the Pulpit Commentary was written a hundred years before Motyer, and both refer to the same verse in Isaiah 25:8. Motyer flat out says that a continuation of “death” is a contradiction of 25:8, and Rawlinson, a very esteemed exegete, simply points out the remarkability of the admission in 65:20.
What does the Bible student do? He has a choice. Appealing to the Hebrew may help a bit. It says that “death” is there, but it makes no case as to the logical “implication” Motyer denies. Logical implications are not always “necessary” implications. Inferences can be drawn a dime a dozen. Some may be true, some possible, some or all false.
If I said, “my house is green” – what implication could you make? Sam’s house is painted green. Maybe. Sam’s house is ecological friendly. Perhaps. Sam’s house is new. Could be. It may be all three. None of these inferences are necessary – unless I had more information.
Now, Motyer says that this continuation of death would contradict 25:8. True, if and only if (logically, iff), death is defined in such a way that creates the contradiction. See, “green” has to be defined.
If “death” is physical death in Isaiah 25:8, and the same in 65:20, then, clearly, we have a contradiction – hence, Motyer downplays the inference of the continuation of death – Isaiah means something else. It “affirms that over the whole of life, as we should now say, from infancy to old age, the power of death will be destroyed” (ibid.). Again, the mention of “sinners” is met with, “Of course, there will be no sinners in the New Jerusalem” (ibid.).
Maybe. Possible interpretation. Certainly not indubitable. What if “death” is defined as something else? What if there is no contradiction? What if “death” (ha muth – the death – in Hebrew) in 25:8 is not “death” in 65:17 at all? No contradiction. Might this be, also, a possible interpretation? Sure. It is good in that is seeks to avoid the contradiction, for God cannot contradict Himself.
In the Biblical Preterist scheme, such a possible interpretation cannot be dismissed so easily. We claim that we are in that “new heavens and new earth” (the Age to Come). Yet, we still see physical death. 25:8 says “the death” is swallowed up in victory at the inauguration of this Messianic kingdom – the swallowing up of “the death” is what brings about the new heavens and new earth, where physical death, sinners, curse, building, enemies, and animals still continue. Physical death, then, is not “the death” that is swallowed up. If it were, we have a contradiction. And, we can’t have that, can we?
What do YOU think ?
Submit Your Comments For Posting Here
Comment Box Disabled For Security
- Comment by Tami Jelinek
Interesting that he equates “the new heavens and new earth” with “the age to come” as if the new creation in Christ is synonymous with a period of time. Please see this article for an explanation of the problems with the equation of these terms.
If the new heavens and new earth (which equals the new creation in Christ, and which also equals heaven, the land, the heavenly country, and the Holy Jerusalem) is synonymous with the new covenant age (the period of time that believers and non-believers alike are living in), then believers and unbelievers alike are in heaven. This is why I always agreed with Todd Dennis that RCM’s particular brand of preterism demands universalism. If Sam’s equation is true, then yes, pretersim = universalism.
The “p” word is becoming less and less useful to us all the time, it seems.
- Date: 28 Oct 2009
I just have a question. Has Sam Frost changed his position on Preterism? I mean to say the last time I spoke to Sam his view seemed to be consistant with what we had always discussed. [This might help, not sure]
Date: 28 Nov 2009
This idea seems for me, to agree with the scripture,therefore I must continue with this view until such time that the scripture would prove this to be wrong.
Date: 18 Feb 2013
I do not understand the problem here. This is how I understand it, Is 25:8 is quoted by Paul in 1 Co 15:54 where in AD70, because of Christs return, the spirit of man put on incorruption and immortality as did all who were born again since then down to today and onward. So, for me, Is 25:8 refers to spiritual life. As regards Is 65, at the close of the previous chapter, the writer asks the LORD what about His people and the glorious temple, would He restrain Himself, would He be silent and sorely afflict them. And the LORD answers him regarding His people in ch 65 and regarding the temple in ch 66. Regarding His people, He says in vs 11 “you are those who forsake Jehovah, and in vs 15 that He will leave their name for a curse to His elect and call His elect by another name. This again refers to AD70 at the beginning of the new heavens and earth, the new covenant. So, for me, Is 65:17 ff refers to the physical life being lived in the new heavens and earth until such time as we are called home and leave this body behind. If this does not encompass the above please tell me what I am missing. Jim