Sam Frost makes it Official "He has Left Full Preterism"
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.
Sam’s statement is found below and at this link.
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 preterISM........no 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.