You are hereBlogs / Starlight's blog / Sam Frost makes it Official "He has Left Full Preterism"

Sam Frost makes it Official "He has Left Full Preterism"

  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/vaduva/ on line 842.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_argument::init() should be compatible with views_handler::init(&$view, $options) in /home/vaduva/ on line 745.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_validate() should be compatible with views_handler::options_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/ on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_submit() should be compatible with views_handler::options_submit($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/ on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter_boolean_operator::value_validate() should be compatible with views_handler_filter::value_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/ on line 149.

By Starlight - Posted on 14 January 2011

Sam Frost has now made it public that he has indeed left Full Preterism officially. Sam didn’t really have to tell many of us as we have seen his partial Preterism tendencies for years. Sam values his influence over those who are conflicted along with him on how to rightly divide the full Preterist hermeneutic and will continue to offer those who haven’t fully grasped the full Preterist hermeneutic refuge under his wings. I expect Sam will begin setting himself up as the alternative approach to full Preterism so that he may rescue the conflicted for Reformed orthodoxy. I don't believe we have heard the last of Sam Frost in full Preterist circles.

Norm Voss

Sam’s statement is found below and at this link.

Sam's statement

It's at this point that you have all, I am assuming, sticking by and seeing where this will lead. Obviously, the bottom line, is that Scripture will have the ultimate trump. I have provided some Scriptures (like Romans 8.19-ff), and have provided ones like Eccl. 3.11 (with commentary from Matthew Henry) or Isaiah 41.4 (with commentary from a few scholars). The rebuttal? "They are not Full Preterists." This is not a rebuttal. "Well, of course you say there is no god, you are not a Christian!" Try using that against an atheist next time you debate him.

I have also provided a hermeneutical principle that is thoroughly embedded in scholarship. I have provided theology, logical reasoning, and Scriptures, which is all rebuffed as whatever. And, that's fine. I didn't expect an avalanche of FP to come knocking on my door.

What I have seen in response, though, leaves me wondering. Has anyone provided proof positive that "the creation" in Romans 8.19-ff is not what it says? The same word is in Romans 1.22 "through the creation." Is that historical Israel, there? And, just a few words down, "neither life, nor death, nor all of creation..." is that "historical Israel" there? I have stepped outside of my own defenses of FP and have seen my own defenses as simply weak. I was defending something passionately and any thing that came up against it, I quickly dismissed. I am not doing that any more. I have expanded my thoughts. I don't like where "consistent" preterism leads, for I believe that it leads to where a great deal of it is right now: confused and all over the place. I said, too, "just give it time". Well, I gave it sixteen years. I gave it my all. Much sacrifice from family and friends. And, for what? More inconsistencies? More "redefinitions"? How far am I going to go to continue to defend this? How many lines will I cross? How many distinctions will I blur? How many arguments from obsfucation will I distort in order to go full steam ahead?

Some want to say "well, the Reformed are all over the place, too". But, notice what this defense is ADMITTING. Since "no one can define" Reformed, then, this would work for FP, would it not? What is FP? Does anyone know? Who gets to champion it? Is this the state of things?

I took a chance, like I have before, and stepped outside. I actually made good on my word: come at FP as a devil's advocate. Pick it apart. Concentrate on areas that need attention (the eternal state, the age to come, etc). I find here a real lack. Mike Bennett wants an eternal state in which change occurs and perfection abounds. However, a growing number of preterists are seeing that we are as perfect now as we will ever get. I think they are the more consistent ones. I also think the more consistent preterists do not see ANY prophecy whatsoever beyond AD 70. I also believe, as many of the Church of Christ FP are saying that Reformed soteriology and FP are incompatible. I said this three years ago, and some left FP when I did. I didn't leave. I hung in there. I didn't care whether anything in FP "lined up" with anything orthodox. It was true, and that was it: damn the torpedoes! Full steam ahead! Never mind that iceberg! What I am finding is that I was actually willing to question any and every doctrine of orthodoxy and find them false so long as Jesus returned and all prophecy was fulfilled in AD 70. I was willing even to discard the "church" today, the lord's table, baptism, evangelism and the whole nine yards. The Trinity? Just ramblings of Greek "fathers" using Greek terms and Greek categories to bind it over the hearts of the lessor as "truth" - to the point of death. Maybe Christ was just a divine man...created. Certainly solves a lot of problems. Maybe the Scriptures, though INSPIRING, are not INSPIRED - and who got to decide the canon anyway? I mean, I was even willing to entertain that Peter "maybe" thought the earth would burn up in the end. That he, too, didn't understand the "nature" Heck, nobody else did after AD 70! Yes....being honest now....I was willing to jettison all of this to save FP. I saw no REASON not to since we have basically questioned and redefined so much already, why not go down the whole pike? what's stopping us? Why not interpret the Virgin Birth narrative as "covenant birth" and "apocalyptic" - not "real" - but "covenantal" and "spiritual"? Why not? What reason would you give? Don't cite creed. Don't cite history. All that you could give is "The Scripture". But, that leads right back to where we are at, doesn't it? What DO the Scriptures say and why are so many in disagreement? Since the FP has left any appeal to commentary, scholar, academia, or tradition - he is left with himself and his opinion of what he thinks the Bible says. If I appeal to a scholar (no, he's not FP). If I appeal to a tradition (no, there are many traditions, can't use them), if I appeal to a lexicon (nope, not written by a FP)....what's left? Your opinion. And we wonder how such a view became so fragmented in such a short period of time. It's all opinions. One man's show versus another. Whoever has the best show, wins.

No, I have stepped back. Call it "security", call it whatever you want, question my motives, say I am power seeking whatever, doesn't matter and it carries absolutely no weight with me. Too much confusion. Maybe one day I will come back.....but for right now, I am very comfortable among the commentaries and scholars and comfortable among the Reformed, once again. I have not left any full preterISTS, but I have left full doubt about it.

I was supposed to write a paper on this, and told a few that I was going to, but, well, here it is, and some of you have already seen this coming. I am no longer a Full Preterist. I am not operating from that paradigm any longer. I am, if anything, where David Chilton was before his passing. That's where I am going to start from (again), and come at this from that angle. There are attractive elements (particularly in King and Preston) that I will retain. But, folks, I am not an Arminianist. I am a staunch Calvinist. My theology begins with (based on Scripture) the nature and being of God and all his attributes. If my eschatology brings me into contradiction with that, then eschatology has to take a back seat. Simple as that. If denial of an eternal state of perfection is contradiction, then sorry, eschatology has to take a back seat. If creation itself fails to become that which is over and above it has ever been, then, sorry....If I have to believe in the absurdity of "infinity" and the numerous problems theology and philosophically that it raises, then, sorry.....That's where I am at. Now, again, let me say, that I have NO animosity towards anyone here and I ain't going nowhere. I am not taking time off. I will continue to interact, dialogue and debate with you guys in the manner we have been doing this. I welcome, WELCOME, your posts. But, I have to be honest here. I am no longer trying to "save" FP and morp it into some form of "orthodoxy" and then say, "see, Full Preterism can live with an end to history." Fact of the matter is (as I will demonstrate in upcoming papers), FP DEMANDS an endless history. It demands other things as well. There are some inconsistencies here (or at least undeveloped aspects of theology). I know where I am at. I already have it in my mind. Now, the task for the next year is to put it in writing and have you guys do what you do (in respect, of course). I won't belittle you as "hyper-preterists" or "heretics" or any of those things. I know that doesn't work. It just inflames passions. Pointless, actually. You are made in God's image, and on that basis alone, worthy of respect. I will try my hardest. I consider you friends and brothers (and sisters). I will continue to support where I can and will continue on AD70.Net with the Sam Frost Show. Loomis already knows this. I have some other decisions to make as well - these will be forthcoming.

Keep me in your prayers.

SuperSoulFighter's picture

It's been ages since I've posted articles or comments here, but I would like to briefly note that my own views and position in relation to the FP paradigm and hermeneutics have not changed. Rather, if anything, they have been strengthened. I don't see the "conflictedness" resolved in any alternative to FP at this point, but I will have to carefully assess your emerging ideas, Sam and perhaps provide you with feedback from our perspective.

May integrity and consistency continue to be our primary goal in seeking to remain true to the originally intended sense and meaning of God's Word as we evaluate and interpret it.


Ephraimlad's picture

Sam, I have the deepest respect for you, and I know it's not easy to say what you've said. I look forward to hearing more from you, because even if I don't agree with the answers, the questions themselves often take us down a new, exciting path.

I am a full preterist, but I also believe in a never-ending Kingdom, with its never-ending fulfillment. Since full preterism and a never-ending history cannot peaceably co-exist (as you clearly concluded) we have to be missing something.

I believe what we've missed is this: the prophets of Israel prophesied to Israel concerning Israel alone, and that we error greatly in not acknowledging that the promises were given to a literal people. It was to them that a literal progeny was assured. It was their election, restoration, redemption and inheritance. Without a literal people, there cannot be a never-ending literal history.

Ribs's picture

My take is this: Understanding 'how' to read is the answer to the 'problems' associated with reading scripture. Where to place an 'idea' in a higher or lower rank is the question. The scripture 'story' is not difficult if 'today' 'one' does NOT place themselves into the narritive. "Salvation is of the Jews" " It is finished"

E. W. Stand

Jhedges's picture

I have no problem saying that the "church fathers" missed the big picture ,that is FP, realized eschatology or whatever one may call it. In my bible I see the children of God being led by God himself, his presence with them, direction given for thousands of years and still "not getting it".

I can also see who in America for example gets the most media attention, Books sold, Church attendance etc. Its Benny Hinn and Joel Osteen.
When Armenians 1000 years from now have doubt about what they believe your gonna have someone use the same logic of "your telling me the church fathers around the year 2000(Benny Hinn, Joel Osteen) just didn’t see it? They missed the big picture?"

Yes they did, they completely missed it.

In my own experience God has shown me "Men as trees walking" (Mark 8:24)it’s a beautiful thing, and every commentary I have come across tells me the opposite of what is true.

It says that Jesus didn’t do the job right the first time. He had to reheal and do it again.

The commentaries are wrong on this. All of them.

Be carefull where you feel comfortable at.

Good luck Sam and God bless you

bro.don's picture

Being brand new to this site, I was curious; is anyone suggesting that eschatology is a "salvation" issue?

And. . . are those here, defining themselves as preterist, as a whole, followers of Calvin?

Thank you. .

". . . we are fools for Christ. . "

Virgil's picture

Don, No, eschatology is not a salvation issue as far as I am concerned, and no, not all people frequenting this website are "calvinists."

bro.don's picture

Coming to the realization of Fulfilled Prophecy back in the late eighties, I was faced with the shock of "what other Biblical truth's are false? Maybe this is a reason that many of our Brethren are so reluctant to even consider what we lovingly share.

Scofield's Kingdom Postponed Zionist doctrine never made sense. . . but. . that's what came from every pulpit or teacher I'd ever heard. How could it not be the truth?

It's probably safe to say that most folks on this site, like myself, have had fellow Christians consider them border line heretics. Twenty two plus years of study has taught me to share within whatever doors or opened, and understand that many or most will not want to hear the truth. And if that is the case, I'll not go beyond anything that would break fellowship with them.

As an Elder in an Evangelical Free church, I'm there to be a servant to the Body of Christ. . .regardless of Eschatology beliefs. As an adult SS teacher, I'll chip away piece by piece and plant the seeds as the doors open. (Most everyone in my class at least knows that Matt. 23/24, Luke 21 and Mark 13, among others, was fulfilled in AD70. . . and who indeed are the "Israel of God and seed of Abraham") It's a start.

I said all of this to ask. . with Preterist fellowships being few and far between, how do those on this site look for local assemblies to join with? And how do you fit in with "traditional Churches" who believe so much differently.

Since it is not a salvation issue,(but still very important) (as asked in my original post) I've found a way to balance without feeling hypocritical. I'm wondering it others feel the same.

". . . we are fools for Christ. . "

MiddleKnowledge's picture

Brother Don,

A group of likeminded families here started up something new from scratch:

Not the easy alternative. I also do not recommend this alone. But it seems to be working out well for us...

Tim Martin

bro.don's picture

Great site. . . what a picture!!! Let the Empire go he Hell:-)> I'm going to use this on my web page.

Being an information and history junkie, I've allowed myself to get waaaay too caught up in the "state of the Union", even when I know better. But I'm making progress.

Two things that bring me back into biblical reality is. . .we are citizens of the Heavenly Jerusalem, and just pilgrims here on earth. And. . . follow the Voice of the Martyrs and find out how foolish we are to spend so much time on trying to change or nation via politics.

". . . we are fools for Christ. . "

Starlight's picture

I also serve as an elder in a fairly large church and reguraly teach classes and other pastoral duties. I'm very comfortable with teaching people what they can handle without stirring the pot. I have no desire to rouse everyone up as I think it is healthy to learn how to immerse ourselves in the body of believers where we can teach as we have oppurtunity. Otherwise they will not get anything. If Preterist would pursue this instead of going off to segregate themselves Preterism will proably make faster inroads. People will learn to recognize by our actions that we are not trouble makers and will learn to trust us. However I attend and serve in a progressive church where people are generally more tolerant anyway. The smaller churches may present a problem where its more clickish and leagalist. So if one is wise and open themselves they can very likely find a church they can work with. If your intention is to set everyone straight then your bound for trouble any where you go.

bro.don's picture

I completely agree.

Many of us, with the excitement of this prophetic insight being opened to us, wanted to rush out and help our brethren "get their Prophetic minds right". And of course, that went in the tank. In fact, when all of this came about, I shared it with my own SS teacher at an AG church in Henderson KY and our relationship was never quite the same.

Even as a younger man, you've possibly seen families leaving a church where they've attended for years, over a minor doctrinal issue.

Hopefully as we mature, we can follow the pattern that you've just mentioned and serve the Living God where he's planted us.

". . . we are fools for Christ. . "

Starlight's picture

Bro don

I can't speak for everyone here but Preterism is a diverse group and Calvinism is not the choice of many but it is of some. I personally reject it but that's just me.

I also don't consider eschatology as a salvational issue. However I do believe that accuracy in understanding scripture is a worthy goal and I would not argue against the idea that understanding the truth of a matter is not benificial.

KurtF's picture


Just what do you consider "salvational issue?" A list would be fine.

bro.don's picture

Sorry. . .I thought you were addressing me.

". . . we are fools for Christ. . "

bro.don's picture

Meaning that I've seen some in the past questioning the salvation of those holding both Preterist and Futurist views. I met some who consider no salvation without water baptism. And. . . . some old time AG folks and Pentecostals that taught there was no salvation without the Baptism of the Holy Ghost. . . .and so on and so on.

My favorite are the John Hagee types that "question" the salvations of those not supporting Zionism.

My point being that, outside of trusting Christ as Lord and Savior, and serving Him alone (and acknowledging Him as the Fullness of the Godhead)this remains, as I see it anyway, "salvation" and nothing else falls in this realm.

Important things (prophecy etc.) need to be understood and rightly divided, but they are still "outside" of salvation issues.

But then. . . that's how I see it.

How's that for a "list".

". . . we are fools for Christ. . "

Sam's picture


Thanks, brother. Keep the big picture alive, man!

Virgil's picture

Sounds good Sam :)

Starlight's picture

Just wanted to post Sam's official position now concerning his status with full Preterist.

Virgil's picture

In some way I agree with Sam. Ultimately I don't care about Full Preterism, and neither should anyone else; we should be concerned with the Scripture's take on it and it looks like that's what he is trying to do.

On the other hand, whoever is actively attacking FP (and I don't see Sam doing that) has not been able to far to give a reasonable outline of why FP is wrong.

My recommendation to someone like Sam is to look at FP as a baseline or perhaps a framework for their understanding of the Kingdom; this is the approach I am taking.

Sam's picture


Drop me a line sometime. Also, remember that 9.5 Thesis.....? That's a great baseline.

KurtF's picture

I agree, Virgil!

Starlight's picture


I don’t think Sam is looking at the way that scripture is looking at it but has point blank said that if it [full Preterism] conflicts with his Reformed orthodoxy then he will go with the Reformed orthodoxy. That is the crux of the issue. Full Preterism is primarily just a developed hermeneutic that points the way to understanding the scriptures properly, anything that usurps that application in its purest form is surely acceptable to many in the church during ages past. That doesn’t mean it gave them the correct understanding but it does give one a workable application or religious worldview. If one perceives such as the higher calling then that perhaps is fine but if one truly wants to understand scriptures in their purest environment then it is not the application of choice [that is any hermenutic will do]. It depends upon what a person wants out of life and religion I suppose. Or maybe one can have their cake and eat it too. ;-)

Virgil's picture

I don't know...I would have to talk to him first. Heck in a real sense "I've left full preterism" a long time ago myself. I stil have conferences, talk to people, write when I have time...etc. But my life doesn't revolve around this stuff. I have a family, a farm to run, a house to build and a great job with lots of responsibilities. FP brought me to a wonderful understanding of the Kingdom of God and because of it I see all things through a new light. In some way it's quite ironic, because Full Preterism brought to be a great place in life where I don't really care about Full Preterism that much anymore.

My hope for Sam is that he is not making decision just to pacify assholes that have been relentlessly attacking him for several years now. But that's all I can say for now until I talk to him about this. Either way, all should show grace to him and everyone else and be the kind of people that Jesus would want us to be.

Starlight's picture

Virgil,don’t kid yourself, there is no comparison between your stepping away from fully engaging full Preterism and Sam’s recanting it. Sam is not leaving a personal involvement within the discussion and debating of theological issues. Unlike you, Sam is not retiring because this is his lifeblood and it isn’t yours so there is little comparison between the two of you.

Sam has not let the “a –h”’s drive him as he has now joined in with them, going after the full Preterist that find his new found theology to be nothing but retreaded futurism. [watch for his regular contributions now on Pault's site]

Again there is little or no comparison between the two of you, except now Sam will try to wrap himself in your own disclosure. You need to read and watch if you really want to know what Sam is up to.

Virgil's picture

Well, Sam is his on man and can make his own decisions ultimately, right? But I will start to stay more in touch with everyone this year and get caught up with what is happening out there.

Again, all I can hope is that everyone encountering FP in their journey will continue to grow from there rather than getting "stuck on AD 70." I would like to think I've done that...and many other friends have done the same thing. The difference is that some move forward calmly, through debate and discussions while others move on tossing some grenades behind them. Todd Dennis comes to mind, and others. That is unnecessary, but hey they get to live with their choices, not me.

Sam's picture


I got your e-mail, be in contact later. Thanks. And, no, this is not my life blood, sorry Norm.

Starlight's picture

“Life blood” definition … [a vital or life-giving force or component]
We shall see won’t we?

Sam's picture

Again, not sure what you mean. God first, family second, business third, theological musings fourth. The first three overlap, obviously, and most of my time spent there. Am I still active, theologically? You bet. But, that only occupies a couple of hours a day. I don't eat, sleep and breath "preterism". Doctrine, if one is not careful, can be toxic. Knowledge can "puff up" and get one sidetracked off of the vision of Jesus Christ, who is constantly whipering in my ears: WORK! DO! STAND! not TALK! TALK! TALK! Virgil (and very much like Jason, who paid him a compliment a few months back) likes to talk, but work is more important, and family takes precedence over all of it. I have four kids living with me (one in college), and a business to run. It's about setting priorities, you know?

Starlight's picture

Sam, that's good advice.
Of course I meant "life blood" metaphorically and not literaly nor did I attempt to set what you had as your overall priorities in life. It was used as a euphemism of sorts to point out your passion for theolgoy and your expected continued involvment. I don't expect you are dropping your involvement with full Peterist becasue you are disavowing full Preterism.

Recent comments


Should we allow Anonymous users to comment on Planet Preterist articles?
Yes absolutely
No only registered users should comment
What are you talking about?
Total votes: 43