Alright. I’ll bite. I don’t know why. Paul T. recently wrote an article saying I misrepresented J. Gresham Machen. Well, first, let’s deal with his little paper on this charge, then we can go back to the paper I wrote to see if what he says is true.
I plan on using this to show why I don’t deal with Paul T., too much. His rah rah team, posting on his article, are equal opportunity critics, jumping on any new bandwagon that attacks Samuel Frost. After all, according to one of Paul’s fans, Kelly Birks, I am a “cult leader”. According to another, Tom, I am a wolf in sheeps clothing. Larry Siegel does try to add some humor, but these stalwart defenders of the faith (one speaks in tongues, another is an amilllenialist, and Birks….well, we don’t know how to classsify his view – it’s immortal body at death – which Paul T. completely disagrees with and which contradicts the point Paul T. is making! Nonetheless, Birks brings up the inane charge of “doceticism” – apparently not understanding what that term means). Yes, folks, these are my able critics! At least they are in unity when it comes to maligning Samuel Frost.
The article, located on Pret Blah, is called “Frost Disingenuously Represents Dr. J. Gresham Machen”. How’s that for a title? It’s a charge as to my motive. See, Paul T. wants you to believe that I deliberately set out to mislead. That’s what wolves do. That’s what cult leaders do. If I can show this to be false, Paul T. is bearing false witness, yet again. This is the reason I don’t read anyone who associates with this gang. They can’t be taken seriously.
First off, Machen clearly wrote that the “image of God” is the soul of Man. Paul T. even says I got it right here. If one is reading my article on Clark, who denies that Man is a combination of “soul + body”, Clark more or less says the same thing (Clark and Machen were very good friends). Now, here is where I am supposedly misrepresenting Machen: Paul T. wrote, “Frost, after pointing out that Dr. Machen held to an intermediate state, transitions from Machen’s view straight into the concept of glorification while never explaining the condition required for glorification to be complete as argued by Machaen (sic).” Now, this is strange, since I assume that people know who Machen was, and I asked the readers to google his name. I also include the title of Machen’s book, with a page number. Gee, what a bad way to cover up my motives! Anyways, Paul T. does quote me as saying that Machen was a defender of the Westminster Confession, which, argues against Dr. Birks’ view, who supports Paul T.! Now, anyone that has read the WCF would know that “glorification” involves the body that is in the casket. Disingenuous? How could it be? The point I was obviously making is that there is an inconsistency on the part of Machen.
Paul T. wrote, “Mr. Frost, the confusion is totally by design, and you are the designer. Why not quote those “Great” theologians in history who agree with your view? Let say, those who existed prior to 1950. What did you say? The silence is deafening! This is the old parlor trick. If Frost had to quote those who held to a CBV position, he would be silenced! So what does he need to do to give “validity” and “respectability” to his position, quote a “Stanch Confessionalist” who would have called him a “heretic” for his teaching.” You see, Paul T., Pret Blah’s most able critic (since Dr. Talbot left that site because he has integrity), still doesn’t get my reason for quoting past theologians. Even though I have spelled this out a billion times, Paul T. only smells what he wants to smell, and if the odor he is looking for isn’t there, he creates his own then blames it on me. Sort of like blaming the dog. He who smelt it, dealt it.
The reason, for the billionth and one time, is to show inconsistency, and to show that we can utilize SOME of what church history provides in terms of theology. Paul T. falls into this very inconsistency on his own. I now demonstrate: Paul T. quotes me as saying that in Machen’s view, the resurrection/reunion of the body “adds very little” to perfect holiness for the believer. I did say it “adds”. Just “very little.” I say this because the WCF says that upon death we are made in perfect holiness and worship God. Paul T. writes: “When Frost writes, “Someone might want to tell our detractors that one does not need a “new body” in order to glorifiy God, be made perfect in holiness, or worship God.”, he is just plain wrong!” Ahem. Paul T. never quotes from the WCF. I did. Let’s quote it again, shall we? “The bodies of men, after death, return to dust, and see corruption:[1] but their souls, which neither die nor sleep, having an immortal subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them:[2] the souls of the righteous, being then made perfect in holiness, are received into the highest heavens, where they behold the face of God, in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies” (32.1). Now, where am I being disingenuous? Did Paul T. fail to see “full redemption of their bodies” there? As a cult leader, I should have mislead my readers and left that clause out! The fact is, Paul T. says that it is wrong to say we are in “perfect holiness” without a body according to the WCF. Paul T. may actually want to read that Confession again. The SOULS are “made perfect in holiness” while they WAIT for the redemption of their bodies. PERFECT HOLINESS without a PHYSICAL BODY. Paul T. denies this, I affirm it.
My point being, of course, that adding physical bodies to an already perfect soul (which is the image of God according to Machen) would be superfluous. It “adds very little.” Paul T. even says so: “While Machen discounts the “body” as a component part of man bearing the image of God, the fact is he understands the Christian view of the “man” is in “body”, which is why Dr. Machen understanding of a fully redeemed life must necessarily include a physical resurrected body.” See that? Machen “discounts” the “body component”. Man is in a body. This was Clark’s view. Man, the WHOLE MAN, is “in” a body. Man is not defined by “body” (Clark was explicit). Now, if soul is the whole man, and the whole man is made perfect in holiness (WCF) without the body, what’s the point of glorifying the body? The point is not to glorify Man. The point is to glorify Man’s body. Why? This is where “glorification” takes on another purpose. It’s purpose is rooted in the eschatological glorification of all things, all of creation at the end of history. Someone might want to tell Paul T. that Birks does not agree with him on the “body glorification” issue.
See, in our view, the glorification of the body is not needed. When we ask why, after perfect holiness has already been achieved, the body in the casket is needed, we end up with a faulty exegesis. But, I didn’t cover that aspect in my article. That’s coming later in my installments with Clark.
Now, back to this “discount” of the body. Paul T. ever anxious to tie us into the Greeks and Gnosticism (silly charges), equates my view with Plato. Paul T., quoting Hoekema, wrote, “Plato, for example, advance the view that the body and soul are to be thought of as two distinct substances: the thinking soul, which is divine, and the body. Since the body is composed of the inferior substance called matter, it is of lower value than the soul. At death the body simple disintegrates, but the rational soul (or nous) returns to “the heavens” if its course of action has been just and honorable, and continues to exist forever.” Clark, Machen, Evans, Nash and a few others posit a “two substance” view. If the soul is a substance, and the body is not a soul, then we have two substances. Clark and Machen argued against the “combination” view that defined Man as soul + body. I argue against that view as well. I am in good membership! Now Paul T. wants to imply that we are Gnostics, devaluing our body (he might want to see my pictures of me on my bike, with my nice shaved, muscular legs – since I exercise on a regular basis). Now, we believe that the body disintegrates, but so does Birks (or at least the Birks a few months ago – I don’t know what his view is today, it could have changed from the pressure). Nonetheless, that’s our view, it happens to agree with Plato, but Plato never read Paul, and never believed in his heart that “Jesus is Lord” and that “God raised him from the dead”. This would put me and Plato in two different camps. If Paul T. uses Aristotle’s law of contradiction (which he does), does this make Paul T. an Aristoteleon? According to Paul T., it would!
Folks, this is why I don’t bother over there. This is the best they have. I am waiting for a few criticisms that I believe will be quite challenging. You won’t find them on Pret Blah. All you will find there is confused arguments, loose citations, a rah rah club that radically disagrees with one another, and constant false witness bearing, questioning motives and the like, equalling me to Satan. It’s not scholarship. It’s confused. It is full of non-sequitors, and even in trying to make some desparate point stick, they have to contradict themselves to do it!
I may “bite” again in the future. But, probably not. It has to get better than this nonsense.
Oh, and for the record, I didn't spend much time on this. It took about 30 minutes to write.
I knew I should not have bit. Paul T. was quick to respond in his confused way, which, in turn, spurred Kelly Birks to write, “Paul, It is astounding that Sam has typed the following without considering the consequences of what he is alligning himself with….
“Nonetheless, that’s our view, it happens to agree with Plato, but Plato never read Paul, and never believed in his heart that “Jesus is Lord” and that “God raised him from the dead”.
So, Sam is saying that an unregenerate pagan philosopher who was unable to understand the “things of the spirit” in the scriptures (1 Cor. 2:14), is the one he now alligns himself with demonstrating that God’s word (according to Sam), would then have to agree with this Godless philosopher, but Godly men who have the ability by the Holy Spirit to understand what the sctriptures are saying (i.E. the magisterial reformers and their students) do not.
“Be not deceived: evil associations corrupt good character.”- 1 Cor. 15:33
Dr. B…”
Now, I am evil on top of a cult leader. Thanks, Dr. Birks.
No more biting…..Pret Blah is without integrity. It has no class. There is no honest discussion there. Just men full of hate. One of your companions was just given the boot (off of Theology Explains, too). Hatred runs in packs…..yes, Dr. Birks, evil ASSOCIATIONS indeed………
When I embrace futurism again (if God wants me to) I would NEVER fellowship with people from that site or people similar to them. They are a disgrace to Christ and His people. They are slanderess, hate-filled, gossipers, with nothing to offer the kingdom of God. If post-millenialism is true, may Christ soon put those enemies under his feet!
It's too bad that Kelly Birks, knowing you and who you are, would actually allow himself to think you are aligning yourself with Plato and thereby rejecting Paul! Does he really not understand the concept of “even a broken clock is right twice a day”? (Plato being the broken clock, NOT Paul!)
Bryan
That's a great point! The early church fathers used Plato quite a bit. And Aristotle is used daily (they don't know it, but he is). They just write with one purpose in mind: call sam a liar. It's all I do. I am a lying liar that lies all the lying time while I am lying. The problem was not so much Roderick, but the whole site (as Chris said). The whole site is contaminated. A zebra can't change its stripes. Everyone sees it except those who endorse it. Hey, but what do I know? I am a chronic liar. I lie to to my kids, my wife, my peers, friends, neighbors, clients, the guy at the gas station, here, there, everywhere! ROFL…..
I feel I must apologize for my previous comment. I was not judging the salvation or lack thereof of anyone of that site and I apologize to those that read here if thats how it sounded. A moment where I let my emotions get the best of me, so sorry for that. I do however hope they will take my emotional outburst into some evaluation, purely as a challenge to the way they are coming across. I mean, if I was coming across as the things I said previously, whether I heard it from a christian, muslim, or pagan, I would really take that to heart and try to represent Christ in a more honoring way. At least I would think about it. That being said, my comment was unnecessary and probably sinful so I do apologize to all who read it.
chris winn
“Sam’s theology is based on Bultmann.” ROFL……….I am cracking up, Paul…………ROFL…….
Virginia, there is a God in heaven! Paul T. has recently wrote a piece on me that is actually positive. If he keeps this up, we might actually engage each other more on polite, Christian terms. Anyhoo, the article can be found here: http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=3780
I can't belive I am saying this, but thanks, Paul……really, thanks.
Aside from Paul's “bravo” (which I accept), he does still have a problem with me being a Clarkian in the first place. How can we be Presuppositionalists on one hand, and heretics on another? Easy.
Clark's system was deductive. It is linear. Jason B. saw this point awile back. Van Til's argument is circular. “God exists” Why? “Because the Bible says so”. Why must I believe the Bible? “Because it is God's word.” How do I know it's God word? “Because it says so.” Frustrating.
Clark's system, though, is “The Bible is God's word, written.” How do we know this? Well, he can only answer by deducing from his axiom, where he starts. He does not seek to “prove” his axiom (axioms cannot be proven…..they are axioms). The Bible teaches how we come to “believe” this axiom: the Spirit. God opens our hearts.
Now, that was painfully brief to the point of error perhaps, but, if one “begins” with this axiom, then one must show how each doctrine we have come to believe is logically, validly derived from the axiom. We believe that Futurism is illogically derived and contains contradictions, and therefore, cannot be what the Bible teaches (it is what the Church teaches, but that doesn't mean the same thing). Yes, yes, we know that this means that brilliant men have not seen the full ramifications of their otherwise brilliant analysis throughout church history, but this is where the idea of “organic development” comes into play. I don't expect the church to have all its doctrinal ducks in a row immediatly. It has taken centuries to develop “Trinity” “Deity of the Son” “Canon of Scripture” “Justification by Faith” “Soveriegnty” (we still don't have that one agreed upon) and, yes, “Eschatology.” Some of these doctrines we accept in that over those centuries, they have been crunched from every angle possible and have still come out on top. They survived. Eschatology? That's been in the process of crunching for about 150 years now. Through it all, utilizing the language of church history, as well as affirming the importance of it, we have come to see the Full Preterism does the best justice to ALL the material that has come down the pike. Full Preterism is a systematic attempt to draw together ALL that has come to us, and is, we think, the best logically deduced system available. Nothing “unorthodox” about saying that. Nothing at all. It's how systematic theology works.
Now, of course, what we have to prove, or demonstrate, is that it is logically deduced from the axiom we began with, and this we think we can do. Paul T. and Dr. Talbot have seen this point, and realize what we are saying. We begin at the same place. We do not end up at the same place. Someone logically goofed, then. That's where we are now. Who goofed? Where? How? This is exegesis. If it can be shown that the deductions do not necessarily follow, then it is wrong, period. We believe the Bible can withstand this test, and we believe that when this is all said and done, Full Preterism will stand this test as well.
It must go through this, though. Anything worth fighting for is, well, worth fighting for, regardless of the casualties, God rest their souls. There are casualties. Collateral damage. It gets ugly. You know that Bible you walk around with in your hand? That came with casualties. You know that church you worship in? Do you realize the price that people had to pay so that you can worship freely? Do you know that some places, like China, your luxory is not available?
I am willing to get dirty. Thank God we finally have a couple of guys that see the point of where we begin. Now, for some, even giving us that is “losing the war.” Well, no. Not necessarily – unless, of course, we can logically teach Full Preterism from the Bible. But, if Full Preterism is an error. And if 2000 years of church history is right, then such a method really has nothing to fear…….does it? Well, does it?
Sam,
As I understand Clark, the Bible is the only source of true knowledge since it is an axiom that the Bible is true. Any other truths can only be arrived at by logical deduction from the Bible. All other knowledge is based on empiricism which, while in many ways useful, does not necessarily imply truth.
What I’m trying to understand is how we go from this view of the Bible to actually interpreting its contents. The process of interpretation involves using knowledge that, I think, is not necessarily deduced from the Bible and, therefore, not necessarily true. For example, there is the knowledge of ancient languages and cultures, there is history, there is Hermeneutics, and there is the laws of Logic.
Preterists would say that “soon” and “near” take on their commonly understood meanings in the various Second Coming passages. Amillennialists would say that these words have a different meaning in the context of God’s timeframe. Both these views can’t be true and yet these meanings are used to interpret the “true” Bible. Can potentially errant + true => true?
It would seem that the only way to get a true interpretation of the Bible is to deduce all the knowledge necessary to interpret it from the Bible itself. Seems like we can get part of the way there with the Analogy of Faith, but I’m not sure we can get all the way there.
If what I’ve said is correct, is it possible to ever arrive at a “true” interpretation of the Bible?
How does Clark deal with this problem?
Thanks,
martin
I sometimes wonder if our attempts at building a systemized theology aren't a bit like trying to cage a wild animal. Certainly it can be done, but whether or not one ought to remains questionable. Should not the living thing be allowed to roam freely? Whereas our trying to cage it will surely lead to its untimely death.
Which is just my musings on the subject,
Robin
Martin,
You see the a problem. It is one that I am currently dealing with in an article. But, I already sense you know the answer, if, in fact, we cannot ever know our interpretation is true. If only “probable”, then we are of all men to be pitied. This would mean that we can know for certain anything at all.
Sam,
You’re right. Logically speaking, if we can’t establish a means of guaranteeing a “true” interpretation of the Bible, then all we are left with is probabilities.
But what’s interesting is that people are quite comfortable with probabilities. For example, nobody “knows” for certain that when they step on a plane that they will make it to their destination. There is a certain probability that they are comfortable with and so they fly.
The same probabilities apply to many life and death situations we face everyday, everything from getting killed in a car to taking a shower, slipping, and breaking one’s neck. But, we tend to go about our business everyday not caring in the least that we may not make it out of the bathroom alive.
In a court of Law, probabilities are everything. We put people in jail and to death by weighing the evidence. Of course, the probability must be very high for the greater penalties, but they are still probabilities.
Is it then any surprise that people would be comfortable with probabilities when it comes to understanding the Bible? Mathison says “If Old Testament prophecy provides us with any kind of standard for understanding New Testament prophecy, then the possibility of double fulfillment or prophetic telescoping cannot be automatically ruled out either.” (WSTTB, 180) His approach seems to be one of showing that the probability of his view is higher than the probability of the full preterist as opposed to using deductive logic to present a definitive case for his view. In other words, he does just what any lawyer would try to do.
Is there a better approach to Bible interpretation? Starting with the ideas that “the Bible is the Word of God written” and that the rules of Logic are axiomatic, can a method of interpretation be devised that has deductive force behind it from beginning to end? I hope so.
I look forward to your article.
Thanks,
martin
Sam,
You’re right. Logically speaking, if we can’t establish a means of guaranteeing a “true” interpretation of the Bible, then all we are left with is probabilities.
But what’s interesting is that people are quite comfortable with probabilities. For example, nobody “knows” for certain that when they step on a plane that they will make it to their destination. There is a certain probability that they are comfortable with and so they fly.
The same probabilities apply to many life and death situations we face everyday, everything from getting killed in a car to taking a shower, slipping, and breaking one’s neck. But, we tend to go about our business everyday not caring in the least that we may not make it out of the bathroom alive.
In a court of Law, probabilities are everything. We put people in jail and to death by weighing the evidence. Of course, the probability must be very high for the greater penalties, but they are still probabilities.
Is it then any surprise that people would be comfortable with probabilities when it comes to understanding the Bible? Mathison says “If Old Testament prophecy provides us with any kind of standard for understanding New Testament prophecy, then the possibility of double fulfillment or prophetic telescoping cannot be automatically ruled out either.” (WSTTB, 180) His approach seems to be one of showing that the probability of his view is higher than the probability of the full preterist as opposed to using deductive logic to present a definitive case for his view. In other words, he does just what any lawyer would try to do.
Is there a better approach to Bible interpretation? Starting with the ideas that “the Bible is the Word of God written” and that the rules of Logic are axiomatic, can a method of interpretation be devised that has deductive force behind it from beginning to end? I hope so.
I look forward to your article.
Thanks,
martin