I hate, absolutely hate, to continue to bring up particular posts, but this one in specific really hit home as to what the problem is. Ed Hassert is continuing to keep flames hot by throwing more fuel on the fire. I will quote the post in full from the Preterist Cosmos site, then analyse what was written. Be forewarned, though. For some people, “anlalyse” means “arrogant personal attack.” For me, analyses simply means trying to understand what is being said or meant. Nothing “personal” to it. Nothing “arrogant” about it.

Here is Ed’s latest post in full:

Maybe instead of saying scripture contains paradox (apparent contradictions) we should declare as the Clarkians do that we just can’t understand it? Yeah, that makes a huge difference in what is actually being said.

The Trinity, not a paradox, we just can’t understand it!

Eternity, not a paradox with infinity, we just’ can’t understand.

God’s sovereignty and human responsibility, not a paradox, we just can’t understand it!

If something is a paradox then we will claim it isn’t and just claim it is something we cannot understand. (Which of course to anyone BUT a Clarkian is exactly, linguistically and semantically the same as a paradox!) The same arguments apply…so God is not the author of confusion (ahem) so why would he reveal things we cannot understand….

So we can arrogantly attack others for holding to these as being paradox (apparent contradictions) as if if we say it enough we will help them forget that a paradox IS NOT A CONTRADICTION, it is something that appears to be a contradiction to human reason, you know something we cannot understand lol

They use their word to mean exactly the same thing we mean by paradox, but because they are so much better than the rest of us, their word is better and we are heretics for using the one that has been used throughout church history until Clark reinvented Christian epistemology in his image!

If seeing the seemingly contradictory statements as paradox in scripture was ok for all the Christians before Clark, why should we discard it just because one man, with about 9 followers worldwide says we should?

The answer is, we shouldn’t. Clark distorted epistemology because of his personal views, not because of anything actually taught in scripture.

Claiming we cannot understand it does not change the fact that it is paradox, it just covers it with language to make yourself look smarter.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PretCosmos/message/21606

As we can see from this post, their is nothing “personal”, right? Nothing “lol” (which I was rebuked for using). Nothing there out of touch, right? Nothing there at all that could be interpreted as “arrogant” or an “attack”, right? This is a “friendly” piece, correct? It is meant to engender reconciliation and stop the “attacks”, right? Right……

But, that’s not the reason I am writing this. I could care less about the “personal” aspects because all’s fair in love and hate. I have tough skin. I am used to it. The problem here is that Ed Hassert has no idea what he is saying. Or if he does, his writing ability to express what he means is lacking. Either way, let me state the first point:

1. IF what I have been arguing is not true, then THIS is the alternative. In other words, once again, it is an ADMISSION to what I have been arguing all along: infinite procreation means that FP must argue for a position that is ” something that appears to be a contradiction to human reason.” Get that? What the ramifications Hassert’s position has for FP are not offered by them when it comes to Eschatology. Eschatology can be, then, “something that appears to be a contradiction to human reason.” Why not? FP has just been defeated into Panmillennialism, which is the view that God “knows” what will happen, and it will all “pan out” in the end.

2. What Hassert never offers is a definition of logical contradiction. A logical contradiction is not “something we cannot understand.” A logical contradiction, as I (and all Logic textbooks) define it is, “No A is B cannot imply that Some A is B”. There are “contraries”, “subalternates” and “contradictions.” A Paradox is what “appears” to be, AT FIRST, a contradiction, but upon further investigation, it can be shown that it is not. “The two shall become one flesh.” This is, at first, an odd statement. How can “one thing” become “two things” at the same time, and in the same relationship and meaning? Well, it can’t. “Two” and “One have different senses, or meanings, and thus the paradox is at once removed. “Unless we all hang together, we shall all hang together” is what Franklin said to the delegation of the Constitution. Sounds paradoxical. But, change the meanings of the words “hang”, and you get Franklin’s point. Confusion removed.

3. What Hassert is admitting is that confusion on this point CANNOT be removed “by human reason.” Of course, he resorts to the odd appeal that “to God” it can be removed. But, how do we even know this? Is there some sort of “reconciliable” calculation in God’s mind that operates on a wholly other different set of rational thought? God is “wholly other”? Does anyone smell Barth here?

4. See, here is the supposed irreconciliable propositions: 1. God knows all his people, each and every one, and he has known them from eternity. 2. God’s people infinitly increase in infinite divisibility so that to all that he knows, there is always one more that can be added. Logic, then, would say “this is a contradiction for he cannot know all with the infinite addition”. Answer from Hassert: ” something that appears to be a contradiction to human reason.” It doesn’t just “appear” to be a contradiction. It IS a contradiction because “all” and “infinite increase” are used in the same sense to the same subject: “people”. See, “the two people shall become one flesh” AVOIDS contradiction by switching the meanings of how “one” applies and how “two” applies. Two PEOPLE don’t become one PEOPLE (that would be nonsense). Two people become one flesh – two senses for “one” and “two.” Paradox absolved. But, here, “knows ALL his people” and “his people infinitely increase” retains the SAME meaning for “people” and attempts to make “all” and “infinite” the SAME. Hence, a contradiction that is ” something that appears to be a contradiction to human reason.” Nonsense.

5. Hassert equates “understanding” with “comprehension”, which is a theological no no. I can “understand” the proposition “eternity is timelessness.” There is no contradiction there, logically speaking. But, I cannot wholly grasp the full perfection of what that means. In short, I am not omniscient. This is how, as I wrote in my first article “Preterism and the Problem of Infinity”, both Van Til and Clark understood the matter. I can understand “Jesus died for my sins.” I can understand, “David was a king in Israel.” But, God fully understands all there is to know about David. I don’t. But, what I can understand about David does not involve me in a contradiction or paradox. It’s like saying I know 55 applications of WORD in Windows 7, but I don’t know all the applications. The 55 that I do know, and understand, does not contradict what I don’t know. I just don’t know it. The equivocation of my opponents on this issue, according to personal discussions, e-mails, phone calls, et al, is becoming apparent, which is why I am, again, writing this piece.

Aside from the comedy of Clark’s influence (which, again, shows such an ignorance of the influence Clark has had, and the fact that Clark was Augustianian in his epistemology – the Trinity Foundation, which was Clark’s publishing arm, reissued De Magistro by Augustine because it so clearly reflected Clark’s approach to knowledge – but Ed “knows” all this, right?), we can clearly see that what I argued for in my three papers is what has been admitted: paradox, can’t understand it, it is a contradiction to human reason. Translation: FP advocates on one of supposedly fundamental tenets that it IS a contradiction to human reason. And, yet, it BEGINS with the notion of “consistent” eschatology! Logic gets you in the door, but in the “end”, “human logic” must be abandoned!

I am pleading with the FP community to come to its “senses”.

Samuel Frost

With a B.Th., Sam completed a M.A. in Christian Studies; M.A. in Religion, and Th.M. from Whitefield Theological Seminary, Lakeland, Florida (with combined credits in Hebrew exegesis from Reformed Theological Seminary, Orlando, Florida - and in Greek exegesis from Church of God School of Theology, Cleveland, Tennessee). Author of Full Preterist works, Misplaced Hope, Exegetical Essays on the Resurrection of the Dead and House Divided with Mike Sullivan, Dave Green and Ed Hassertt. Also edited A Student's Hebrew Primer for Whitefield Theological Seminary. Samuel M. Frost co-founded Reign of Christ Ministries, and has lectured extensively for over 8 years at Full Preterist conferences, including the Evangelical Theological Society conference, of which he is currently a member. Samuel is ordained, and has functioned as Teaching Pastor at Christ Covenant Church in St. Petersburg, Florida (2002-2005). He helped host the popular debates between Don Preston and Thomas Ice (with Mark Hitchcock) and Don Preston and James B. Jordan. Samuel is widely regarded by many of his peers as being one of the foremost experts on prophecy, apocalypticism, and Preterist theology. He was highly influential in the Full Preterist movement, having been published by Don Preston (Exegetical Essays), footnoted in several Full Preterist works, and authored one Forward, Reading the Bible Through New Covenant Eyes, by Alan Bondar. He has come to denounce his Full Preterist views in 2010 and affirms the historic Christian Faith and orthodoxy. Samuel Frost owns and operates his own business and resides in Florida with his wife Ann Marie, and his children, Janet, Jacob, Hunter, and Olivia. Check out more from Sam.