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.