|
Hebrew
Gematria Calculator
|
Isaiah 65:17-ff.
By
Samuel L. Frost
(2009)
"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
|
"EVENTUAL GOSPEL UNIVERSALISM"
Peace on Earth where all competing religions
eventually bow the knee to Jesus in defeat -- such as
Paganism did in the conversion of the Roman Empire to King
Jesus
312
"Surely, it was not in vain that Jesus said, ‘I am
the Light of the World.’ ‘God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that
the world through him might be saved.’ ‘I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw
all men unto myself.’" James Stuart Russell, The
Parousia (emphasis in original) |
|
James Stuart Russell |
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.
Ps. 149
|
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
..Will Be Spam
Filtered and Posted Shortly..
Date: 28 Oct 2009
Time: 14:24:39
Your Comments:
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
Time: 23:29:43
Your Comments:
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
Time: 19:53:58
Your Comments:
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
|
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.