EARLIER WORKS

"Preterism is an interpretive system that is locked on the events of 66-70 A.D.  It views this as the decisive eschatological event.  The Second Coming, Resurrection of the Dead and Great Judgment are seen as having taken place in and around these years. This is a contradiction to Christian orthodoxy and its Creeds, Councils and all the Reformed, Baptist, and Methodist Standards (and we wonder why preterists are called "heretics"!)." 

• Frost on Isaiah 65 and "infinity" (2009) "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)."

• Hosean Allusions in First Corinthians (2006) - "One has to do forensic work in I Cor 15. The oft repeated analogy is that of listening to one end of a phone conversation and trying to figure out the other end. Deductions, clues, hints, implications and inferences can be drawn so that a fairly accurate construction can be had. It was “made known” (vdhlw,qh) to Paul from "the ones of Chloe" that "selfish rivalries" (;ridej) had broken out among the Corinthians (1.11). No doubt, those rivalries were theologically driven at bottom, manifesting ethical and practical differences which began to wreak havoc in the way the Corinthian households gathered together for worship and fellowship."

• An Analysis and Critique of Taken to Heaven in A.D. 70:  Blessings Expected at the Parousia (IPA, Inc., 2005).  "There is an increasingly surfacing division current within preterist studies between the “heaven now” denomination and the “heaven when you die” one.  Such is to be expected.  Ian D. Harding has recently penned Taken to Heaven in A.D. 70 (335 pp.), published by Ed Stevens’ publication arm, International Preterist Association, Inc.  The book is endorsed by Arthur Melanson and Walt Hibbard on the back cover.  It is important to the preterist movement because it is the first major work noting the differences within the preterist camps. 
  
  [A]s Harding himself states, the book is directly written to those preterists who hold to what has been called the “heaven now” view (Harding, xiv).  This view, in his words, if true “takes away all meaning of language” (107).  It is to be admitted that the view expounded upon by Max King in Cross and Parousia of Christ and the view represented here are two completely different approaches within preterism.  They both operate from the same framework, of course, but the agreement ends there and this book makes it clearer than any other I have read.
  
  The book does not pretend to be a “scholarly” piece.  The author never quotes authors like King and others that espouse the opposing view.  He simply interacts with the other view by stating something like, “[s]ome preterists say that the glorification promises were fulfilled at the Parousia in the living pre-Parousia Christians while they remained on earth” (107).  That would be the view of Max King, more or less, and those who align themselves with his approach more or less.  There is not much discussion about the meaning of “body” from its corporate aspect.  Indeed, much of what Harding does is simply assume that “glorification”, “made alive” and “catch away” are robbed of meaning if not taken literally.  Whether or not he proves this is another thing. "

• Saint Athanasius and Preterism (2005) "The Church must receive what is incontrovertible, but reject what raises serious problems in order to work out a solution within its own traditions that best resolves these problems for the sake of maintaining biblical truth (even if this means eliminating older paradigms which have created the problems in the first place). There will be, and always have been, cries of “heresy” from self-proclaimed “purists” and “keepers of the traditions”. This is to be expected. But, the ever faithful, and, in Luther’s case, the faithful few, keep raising the issues and pointing out the hypocrisy, arbitrariness, and inconsistency until such a voice is raised within the holy church that the “few” become the “many.”

• Propositions of Preterism (2005) "as our dear saint has noted, we are without “vision and prophet.”  We are not guided by burning bushes, splitting Red Seas, clouds by day and fire by night.  These are things seen.  Yet, because redemption had not yet come, the children of Israel needed a schoolmaster."  "the church is perfect according to the word of God, and not according to what we SEE.  That is judging the church as a child, wanting to go back to Egypt.  Modern day yearning for the good old days sound like this: “wouldn’t it be easier if Jesus just came back and did some really cool miracles?  Wouldn’t it be easier if we just discovered the ark of Noah?  Wouldn’t it be easier if we could have incontrovertible proof that Jesus returned in A.D. 70?"

• A Critical Response to Kurt Simmons' Bi-Millennialism (2004)  "The question is, when were these given authority to judge? It must be when they came to life (both are aorist aspects). Thus, when they came to life, they were given thrones and authority to judge, being that they were ‘with Christ.’ This is closely akin to ‘being seated with Him in heavenly places.’ It is this that John is picturing here. When did any ‘come to life’ in Christ?"

• A Critical Response to the Kloskes' Exegesis of I Corinthians 15 (2004) "The “transformation” happens to both the living and the dead at the same time. KK appear to agree with this as the quote above shows, but the “change” given to the “dead” is different from the “change” given to the living, who go on living and eventually die. At the moment of their death they are “changed” by being given a “spiritual body.” However, as the quote above shows, KK believe that they have already, “spiritually speaking” or “internally” been changed with an added dimension of not yet being changed, finally (thus, leaving them to the charge of futurism of some sort). "

(On The Second Coming)
"The formula for prophecy in the OT is that Event A is announced, then, when it occurs, the saying, "then you shall know that I am the Lord" applies.  One cannot argue in silence that many Jews holed up within the walls of Jerusalem did not repent at the last minute with the realization of their crime against Christ.  History, from three accounts, reports of prodigies and signs in the skies.  Eusebius repeats those reports as well.  The only thing the early church failed in doing was not tying the Second Coming doctrine to those events (which many mention - Barnabas, Justin, Irenaeus, Clement, etc.).  This single event, according to Chrysostom and Athanasius, signaled the spiritual and covenantal transfer from old to new.  All that modern Preterists do is simply apply this transference to eschatological categories.  We just simply take a step further, logically, than did our blessed predecessors." (Why I am not a Preterist)

(On Origen)
"On the whole, he correctly sets forth their eschatological viewpoints. At times he may read too much into a portion of their works, but that is rare. Yet, after this useful scholarly work which he has done, at the end he sides with Origen…in his fanciful interpretation of I Corinthians 15:35,38” (p.6, Preterism). Actually, I do not side with Origen at all on those passages. I merely state that Origen did not have the flesh-body recomposed at the Second Coming but rather a “germ” of that body is used to build a “spiritual body”. I do not hold to that idea. I stated it only because I wished to show that a flesh-body resurrection was not the only view of the resurrection by the end of the second century. Be that as it may, Adams does quote me fairly." ("Millennial Post" - 12/03)

(On Max King)
"Ironically, it was in this academic cradle of Eschatology that the search for the Historical Jesus was born. There was a problem, and no doubt 70 C.E. figured into the solution somewhere, but 70 C.E. was hardly the 'end of the world' and we are hardly in the "new heavens and the new earth." No one could say that the "resurrection of the dead" took place then. Well, someone did say it. His name was Max King.

In surveying the history of Covenant Eschatology, I cannot find in print, prior to King, a view that constructed the model he put forth." (A Brief History of Covenant Eschatology)

"Full Preterism is the ONLY Millennial scheme that does not have this Final State - which should make it suspect, right there. " Sam Frost (Siegle HyP response: "My understanding of the "final state" of the believer (a descriptive term that is never used in Scripture) would relate to his entering into Covenant with God through identification with and participation in the already accomplished "resurrection-life" that belongs to the "age to come."")

Frost, 11/12/10: "There are so many horns of the Full Preterist dilemma coming at me like a flood lately…..things I never really paid attention to.."

Frost, 11/15/10: (Sam's older statement in book "House Divided") "The Preterist scheme is simple: the end of the age took place in AD 70, and at that time, the "age to come" was inaugurated by the Second Coming of Christ.....The Kingdom was established in that day and is now fulfilling passages that speak of its eternal, never ending growth and increase..." (229). You can already see that issue with me there. But, you can also see my allusion to Isaiah 9.6 ("increase") and how I had not formulated an end to history yet. This was my Full Preterist view. The point of this is to point out the "now fulfilling".....That has always been in my preaching (mustard seed growth), and even in House Divided, no one picked up on it then as they are now. So, it demonstrates what I used to believe, and how the argument from infinity has made a huge impact in my thinking as well. I wasn't searching for this. I was quite happy where I was at. But, I do operate from two things, one of which you mentioned. First, Scripture... So, I now had a choice: choose what I have always believed, or tow the Full Preterist line even to the point of "paradox". But, that would mean I abandon my epistemology - and that was not going to happen, either. These choices - far more important to me than some speculative point of Full Preterism (infinite procreation) have become crystal clear. Crystal clear. "

SAM FROST FINDING AGREEMENT AMONG FULL PRETERIST GROUPS THAT REFUTES THE TRADITIONAL TEACHING THAT "ALL BIBLE PROPHECY WAS FULFILLED IN AD70" // CREATES NATURAL DEFINITION FOR "HYPER-PRETERISM" - "ALL BIBLE PROPHECY WAS FULFILLED IN AD70"

• Sam Frost: BCS, Ch. 21 Pt. 1 (11/5/10) "The “buzz” going around on the other Preterist websites is that they, too, see “ongoing fulfillment.” If this is the case, then Full Preterism needs to drop the moniker that “we believe ALL prophecy was fulfilled in A.D. 70.” They weren’t. The prophecies concerning the “age to come” are being fulfilled today.

  • On Prophecy - "I suppose the difference is that I believe that this goal is prophesied.  Once it is accomplished perhaps then God will end history.  I don’t know when He will, just that he has revealed in the Bible that he will (Eccl 3.11; Is 41.4, et al)." 

  • On Full Preterist Covenant Creationism - "One has to buy into the entire system it seems in order for the "parts" to work. But when one starts questioning the parts, that's where it breaks down. "

(On David Chilton) "And as I showed in my recent article, Chilton did not "drop" all the aspects of the "Paradise Mandate" and "consummation" when he became a FP.  This prompted Todd Dennis to ask whether he really was a "full" preterist in the sense that every single prophecy was fulfilled BY AD 70.  Clearly, as his own words prove, he carried on the "Age to come" message in the same manner.  I had the opportunity to speak with Chilton a few times, and read his book since 1987, when I first got it.  I know his views inside and out.  It's what I cut my teeth on in Bible College.  His lectures on "new heaven and new earth" were written AFTER he became a FP.  that's what makes them significant as my article points out.  He firmly believed, as do all postmillennialists, in a renewed and transformed CREATION that will eventually manifest itself on earth as it is in heaven.  Where earth and heaven are one and the same." (DiD, 1/5/11)

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? (Sam on 1/5/11: "Yes, Todd, it would.")

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

Ed Stevens
"I was also reading Sam Frost's new book, Misplaced Hope, which is an excellent rebuttal against Jonathin Seraiah's critique of Preterism.  His book reminded me again of the extreme lack of writings by Christian leaders immediately after AD 70.  Indeed, Sam did a marvelous job of further minimizing the number of post-70 documents even more by suggesting that Barnabas and Clement may have been written before AD 70.  This makes the number of post-70 "Apostolic Father" writings even fewer.  It was not the purpose of Frost to solve the mystery of the post-70 silence, but rather simply to assume it as fact throughout his book.  And it is this silence, which all church historians acknowledge, that pushes me toward the rapture view." (Silence Demands a Rapture)

Mike Sullivan (2009) "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. ""There is no more weeping, because God’s people have been forgiven of their sins. For all Partial Preterists and even some “Full Preterists,” this is a “Gnostic” and a shallow view of the passage. However, this is the NT’s eschatological goal of redemption, and we must reject their “literal phases” propped up with their invented “not yet” and “ongoing fulfillments” which the NT authors know nothing of taught  (sic)." (Rebuts Sam Frost's Theology)

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.

A Brief History of Covenant Eschatology

By Samuel Frost, M.A.R.
Aug 26, 2004

• Dr. Kenneth G. Talbot: Samuel Frost and the Westminster Confession (2009) "Here Mr. Frost acknowledges himself as rightfully being a ‘heretic’ in light of Reformed theology. We also read in: The Constitution of Christ Covenant Church, Organized by Samuel Frost, in Section 1:A 1:2, Frost and others where they wrote: “We are fully aware of the opinion by many that preterism is regarded as a “damnable heresy.”

  Dr. Talbot continues:  Again, Mr. Frost clearly understands the implications of his doctrine in light of both Reformed and Evangelical Christianity. Why would he acknowledge that he is rightfully being called a ‘heretic’ and a ‘damnable heretic’ (not my words, but Mr. Frost’s and Mr. Green’s), and then complain about being called a ‘heretic’ and a ‘damnable heretic’ at that? Let’s see if this is logical."

What do YOU think ?

Submit Your Comments For Posting Here
..Will Be Spam Filtered and Posted Shortly..