On November 21st I was informed that Kelly Birks had published a “trial” at his church in Omaha, Nebraska – Messiah Reformed Church. Kelly had informed me that they would “mail” this to me. I was not informed that this would have been made public. But, I found out through Wanda Short, who found out through a posting by John Scargy, who posted it on Death Is Defeated. That’s how I found out that I was “defrocked.” I guess that’s the biblical way Messiah Reformed Church does business.

Now, Kelly had informed me that this “trial” was going to take place, that he gave me “two weeks” to drop everything and fly to Omaha to the “trial.” Of course, I informed him that I was taking my family on vacation, and thought his whole process was silly. I still do. My response to Kelly was posted as well on his website, with red-lettered responses. I still stand by every word of that response. But, with the “trial” put on his website, and with the red-lettered response to my response, I think it is wise to issue my Final Response to this whole thing. And, with that, I will not be responding, or talking to, or entertaining any relationship with Kelly in any way, shape, or form (unless repentance is involved). The only way I would communicate with Kelly would be on theological grounds in a post or comment somewhere on an blog or article, defending a view, or something like that. As far as my personal dealings with Kelly – they are finished. I want nothing to do with him (and it pains me to say that, but I treat him like I do others who have done nothing but seek to malign, discredit, destroy, or lie about me in public). Of course, to these types, I always hold out a hope of reconciliation, and I say this because I worship the God of the impossible.

I. The Charges:

The Charges brought against me, for the purpose of withdrawing my ordination (a power they never had, as we shall see in the Second Section) will be dealt with in the order they appear on the “trial” document:

1. That Mr. Frost holds to the view and teaches that Christ’s body in the tomb went through post-mortem decay over the three day period in contradiction to the scriptures. Based on the evidence presented to this court, you were found guilty of this charge.

Response: Kelly denies that Jesus’ human body was a full human body in the sense that it underwent all the things humans undergo when they die. Somehow, Jesus was free from scabs, scars, or any cell damage, or rigor mortis during the period of time his Soul left his body. In the passage, “his flesh saw no corruption”, it is affirmed by Kelly that Jesus underwent no biological corruption in any way, shape, or form. The problem here, is that Kelly has not read Charles Hodge (Systematic Theology, Vol. II, Ch. XII) where it is affirmed that Jesus’ human body was “like” his brothers in every fashion (Hebr 2.14). There were some who denied this – stating that Jesus’ body was fashioned of celestial substance. That it was not subject to the powers of death in any normal fashion. Further, Hodge, commenting on the passage, “he shall not suffer my holy one to see corruption” states, “merely expresses the confidence of the speaker that God would not leave him under the power of death” (617). Jesus, as the Westminster Confession states, suffered “under the power of death” and continued “in the state of the dead” (Ans. To Q. 50). Thus, David was “left in the state of the dead” whereas Christ was not (617). “Christ was delivered from the grave before corruption has a time to affect his sacred person” (617).

Hodge, nor the Bible, nor the Westminster Confession, denies what Kelly affirms: that Jesus’ body did not suffer to some degree, post-mortem decay. He was not “left” in the tomb. His body did not suffer decay, obviously, to the extent that “David, here to this day” (Peter’s day) suffered decay. Lazarus suffered more decay than Jesus did, yet he was raised on the fourth day (and died again). To say that Jesus underwent no corruption, however, denies the Bible as it regards the full human-ness of Jesus’ body.

I argued (and have always argued) that Jesus’ physical body was not glorified upon resurrection. However, the Bible is clear that upon resurrection, at that instant, “glorification” is the result. Therefore, Jesus was “glorified” while still in his “self-same” body – concluding that “glorification” does not entail “transformed physical bodies” or “getting new spiritual bodies”. This is really what is at issue here, for this logical conclusion cuts right to the heart of Kelly’s strange “immortal body at death” view.

Even here, Hodge (628), argued that Jesus was not “glorified” until his ascension, making the same arguments I have made in the past concerning his post-resurrection appearances (his “material body” was the same – undergoing only those changes necessary for a three-day old body to walk again on earth – as Lazarus’). In other words, when Hodge affirms that Jesus’ body “was changed” (627), he does not specify how, but he does not connect this “change” to “glorification.” This assumes, then, that Jesus’ physical body underwent natural corruption, as any human body would have undergone, and in order for it to walk again on earth, like Lazarus, would have involved biological restoration to some extent (arteries harden, cells die, brain functions cease, acidic digestion, etc.). But, this resuscitation of Jesus’ body was not “glorification” in Hodge’ view. For Hodge, glorification involves the transformation of the physical corpse, and this happened at Jesus’ Ascension.

Finally, King taught the same thing in Cross and the Parousia. “Christ was not raised in body “according to the flesh,” i.e., according to what His mode of existence was before His death. He was raised bodily “according to the Spirit”….” (181). This kind of writing is all throughout King’s masterful work. King is not at all denying the physical resurrection of Christ, but is interpreting the opening remarks of Paul in Romans 1: according to the flesh, He was the seed of David, but according to the Spirit, he was proclaimed the Son of God. The “modes” (as many commentators call them, which King drew from) are “flesh” and “Spirit” and have everything to do with defining the nature of the resurrection of Christ. It was far more than a resuscitation of His body. Jesus’ resurrection was a foretaste of those included “in Him.” It was a standing on earth as one glorified and justified before God, having defeated death and sin. As He is, so are we. We stand on earth, in our physical bodies, glorified and justified through His death and resurrection. This is my very brief doctrine, and has been elaborated here and there, and in my article, published years ago, called, “Super Body.”

The point is, here, there is no “heresy”. The difficulties as to the nature of Jesus’ resurrection is not a new subject. It is one worthy to explore in light of the resurrection of the dead difficulties Preterist theology must deal with. It denies nothing essential as it relates to our Lord and Savior, in regards to His humanity, or His divinity. Another point is that I was reading King’s work back in the nineties. I spoke at the last two Warren, Ohio meetings at his church, and Tim King wrote the Preface to my book, Misplaced Hope. I have maintained this view since that time, long before I ever met Kelly Birks.

2. That Mr. Frost holds to the view that the doctrine of justification by faith was not fully effectual without the additional event of the Parousia. Based on the evidence presented to this court, you were found guilty of this charge.

This second charge is false. I recently wrote a paper on Justification which clearly documents what I meant by the futurity of justification. The word “fully” in this charge is used by the Reformers and theologians I quote in that paper as it is linked to the Final Judgment, when the “full disclosure” will be publically declared as it relates to the justification of the believer. I also wrote (and have always written) that justification is by faith, and was received entirely by faith through the merits of Christ and Christ alone. What the apostles were looking forward to was what Hoeksema and Turretin and many other Reformed theologians have seen as a “full” disclosure, or revelation of the FACT of justification. My point in all of this was that since Preterism maintains that said “Final Judgment” has taken place, such aspect of justification no longer exists for us believers living in the Age which Has Come. I do not look forward to being declared “righteous”. I have been already been declared righteous in Christ.

Birks has added the word, “effectual” here, and this is where he simply has not done his research. And, why bother calling me directly, when he can just spin charges out of the blue? I do not hold to “progressive justification”, and never have I preached that justification was made “effectual” at the parousia. He won’t find those words in my writings because they do not exist. What he will find is what I wrote in my paper, Justification (on the RCM website). I have maintained this, too, as outlined in my book, Misplaced Hope, written in the Summer of 2001, published in the Spring of 2002. If he didn’t, then he really didn’t know me, did he? More on this later.

3. That Mr. Frost holds to the teaching that since the AD 70 Parousia, sanctification as an ongoing process for the believer has ceased and that all believers are since AD 70, fully conformed to the image of Christ and are without any further need of sanctification. Based on the evidence presented to this court, you were found guilty of this charge.

This is another aspect of Preterism that Birks simply refuses for whatever interpretational reasons to accept. Nonetheless, my paper on Sanctification is clear enough. But, here again, if that wasn’t clear enough, my rejection of “progressive sanctification” is explicitly taught in Misplaced Hope, Chapter 3, “The Perfect Body of Christ.” So, while found “guilty” as charged (alright, I am guilty here), this is no new thing to me, since I wrote my book at least a year before I ever met Birks. This FACT figures into this material as we go through this.

4. That Mr. Frost holds to the teaching that there is no new revelation in the New Testament documents that was not already taught in the Old Testament. Based on the evidence presented to this court, you were found guilty of this charge.

This one is worded in such a way that it would appear that I deny the NT as “revelation”. Here is perhaps one of the more gross misunderstandings this “court” has. I think, and maybe someone could remind me, that the NT contains a book called, Revelation of Saint John. It is in there, right? My teaching here, is nothing more than what King wrote, “Christ did not give His disciples new Scripture, but a new understanding of the Scriptures through the light of His death and resurrection. “Then he opened their understanding that they might understand the Scriptures” (Lk. 24:47)” (King, 414). Or, in the Augustinian motto: the OT is the NT concealed, the NT is the OT revealed. That’s my motto. Paul taught “not one thing not spoken of in the Law of Moses or the Prophets”, and neither should we. The NT is inspired “Scripture” in that it shows what the OT means and has always meant. It does not “add” nor “take away” from the OT “Scriptures.” It is the set of Commentaries inspired by the Spirit, written by the apostles and their close companions (Luke, Jude). I would like to know what “evidence” Birks submitted in this “court”. What is really at issue here is, again, Birks’ strange view of the immortal body at death. When pressed that the OT does not teach such a view, Birks responds with the old notion of “progressive revelation”. That is, the NT contains a whole new set of revelations never before seen or taught in the OT. This is typical futurism when it cannot sustain its view with the WHOLE COUNSEL of God’s word. And, I reject this doctrine of men.

5. That Mr. Frost teaches as to the eternal state of the believer in heaven after they die upon this earth, that the believer will receive no further glorification in the heavenly realm and that a formless state will be the believer’s experience as to the nature of the resurrection. Based on the evidence presented to this court, you were found guilty of this charge.

Not quite sure to make of this one. I have never taught that we are “formless” in heaven. That’s just stupid to even make this charge, since there is absolutely nothing in anything I have ever written that would suggest this. Thus, it is a lie. I have maintained that the soul is the “substance” of the Person (see my series on Clark’s book on RCM – and I read this book back in the nineties as well, and have always maintained it). Where in the world does this monkey court get the word, “formless”? I kind of have to chuckle at this one.

Now, when we continue, we find that Birks has responded in red letters to my initial response to their “court” room proceedings. I stand by all that is written in that, and there is no reason to review that here. My point here is to make remarks upon Birks’ response in red letters.

1. We believe Mr. Frost sent this as a pre-emptive act in order to slow or stop the proceedings against him.

Response: No, not really. My reason for sending it was to PROVE that you have no jurisdiction to renounce my ordination. I could care less about your “court” proceedings.

2. The purpose of this response is to show Mr. Frost’s incorrect assessment of the historical and legal facts of the occasion that preceded his ordination by Dr. Birks ad MRC back in October of 2002.

Response: Note this, now. “Incorrect assessment” means I am lying. Birks is going to lay out the “correct assessment”.

3. What Mr. Frost and Christ Covenant Church (CCC) say here regarding not recognizing “then” any “obligations” to the Elders of MRC , is clearly contradicted by the fact that back in 2002, Sam Frost DID in fact recognize the authority of the Elders of MRC, in that Sam Frost on two occasions submitted himself to examination from Dr. Birks and Elder Keith Bernhagen as to his compliance with the doctrinal standards of the Westminster Confession of Faith, in order to seek ordination from the above body. MRC did not seek to bring CCC under its jurisdiction, as If CCC were seeking entrance into some form of a denomination. However, Mr. Frost did submit himself to the ordaining authority of Dr. Birks as a Presbyterian Teaching Elder (TE). This was clearly understood by all parties at the time of Mr. Frost’s examination which he willingly obligated himself to.

Response: False. He has nothing in writing in which to prove this. I do not have any recollection of any “thorough” examinations at the hands of Keith Bernhagen or Birks. Notice here the “doctrinal standards” of the Westminster Confession. Does it not occur to Birks that Full Preterism cannot adhere to the eschatological chapters in that Confession? Secondly, we never, or I, never sought ordination under “that body” (MRC). Notice that Birks wiggles here: “MRC did not seek to bring CCC under its jurisdiction, as If CCC were seeking entrance into some form of a denomination. However, Mr. Frost did submit himself to the ordaining authority of Dr. Birks as a Presbyterian Teaching Elder (TE).” That, for me, is the whole issue. Birks admits it here. He was not a representative of MRC, and we never sought any affiliation with MRC or its bylaws or standards. Birks was brought in as one having been ordained in the PCA (Presb. Church of America). In Presbyterian policy, such “examinations” would have been filed and dated – but here, there are no written records. I would have never submitted to such a procedure.

4. We agree that CCC did not seek any formal affiliation with MRC. However, it was not at the time the understanding of either the Elders or members of MRC that Mr. Frost was not coming under the ordaining authority of Dr. Birks and MRC. If there was no need for Mr. Frost to come under our ordaining authority, why did Mr. Frost submit himself to said authority? Why did he not consider himself as already ordained through some other means? More on this follows.

Response: Again, for the second time, it is noted that we did not seek affiliation or jurisdiction. It is the “however” here that is a problem for Birks. Note the questions. Why? Well, we wrote why in our bylaws: “The by laws and standards of doctrine of Christ Covenant Church does not, and did not, recognize such obligations to the Elders of Messiah Reformed Church, but only the individual authority of Dr. Kelly Birks in that he was lawfully ordained within an established Presbyterian denomination, not Messiah Reformed Church. To this, it is proven in the Constitution of Christ Covenant Church…”

See that? Mike Delorys was brought in as a Presiding (PRESIDING) elder because he was recognized within the RCA (an established denomination). Birks was brought in because he was ordained in the PCA (an established denomination – not MRC – which is independent, and not a denomination, which would not have given us any reason to have Birks in the FIRST PLACE – why have an independently ordained person “establish” an independently ordained pastor?) Birks, on my certificate, signed his name as PRESIDING ELDER (not Teaching Elder). They PRESIDED over the ordination. They did not ESTABLISH the ordination. He asks a second question, “Why did he not consider himself as already ordained?” The ceremony we had was the establishment, Kelly, of my ordination as given by Christ Covenant Church. You PRESIDED over that ceremony. You were not the AUTHORITY of that ordination. Never were. Sorry to burst your bubble.

5. It was only after April of 2009 that Dr. Birks began to become aware of Mr. Frost’s departure from certain core biblical and reformed doctrines that led to our present course of action. Mr. Frost insists that he has always believed the things that he currently teaches regarding the type of doctrinal deviation that Mr. Frost has recently been charged with. Both Dr. Birks and Elder Bernhagen, who examined Mr. Frost as to his conformity with the Reformed standards that MRC holds to, never during the course of those examinations discerned that Mr. Frost held to a series of beliefs concerning (for instance), the necessity of the extra component of Christ’s Parousia in order for believers to become fully justified, or that Mr. Frost held to the notion that Christ’s body for the three days in the tomb, went through post-mortem decay.

Response: This is where he really has to cover himself. Fact is, my book, Misplaced Hope (2001), clearly states these beliefs. Birks’ only proof? Himself. He just doesn’t believe me. They never examined me over these matters, folks. For, if they did, why would I contradict the very NEW book I was promoting? Just so that I can get Birks to lay his hands on me? I knew, and state in our Constitution and ByLaws, that we would not be received as a “full” church even if we went through the ceremonies. We would be regarded as heretics, and unduly established. Birks was going to help us in that matter? That somehow, if I could just deceive him over some “secret” doctrines I held to, I could get his power and authority to lay hands on me and the whole church world would see us as legit? Sorry, I am not this naïve, and I am not this stupid. Sorry, again, to burst the massive bubble that surrounds Birks’ head. But, listen to this: “Personally, Dr. Birks does not believe that Mr. Frost held to these things back in 2002, and that they rather have developed within Mr. Frost since the time of his ordination.” In the face of what was written by me, and published, in Misplaced Hope, this arrogant man STILL INSISTS that I did not believe in these things! Does the word, “proof”, mean anything anymore?

6. This is fine, as it pertains to the doctrines that CCC desires to hold on its own, independent of another church body. However, by Mr. Frost’s submission to the Elders of MRC, he placed himself under the standards of doctrine held by those elders, which said doctrine is established and ratified by the Standards and By-Laws of MRC by the members thereof. Mr. Frost’s ordination and authority that comes with said ordination, comes under the jurisdiction of the Elders of MRC and none other. Therefore, Mr. Frost submitted himself to the authority of the Elders of MRC and was granted ordination under those principles and not to any principles of doctrine held by CCC or any other ordaining group with different standards than what is enunciated by MRC and its Elders.

Response: This is the fallacy of continuing to assert what has been already proven false. “CCC can be independent, great, but the fact is, they are under the authority of MRC, even though we have already admitted that they are not.” I never placed myself under THEIR standards, and Birks as ALREADY admitted this! I want to put this in black and white:

1.“MRC did not seek to bring CCC under its jurisdiction”. 2. “he placed himself under the standards of doctrine held by those elders, which said doctrine is established and ratified by the Standards and By-Laws of MRC by the members thereof. Mr. Frost’s ordination and authority that comes with said ordination, comes under the jurisdiction of the Elders of MRC and none other.”

Contradiction, anyone? So, I DID come under the jurisdiction, but I DIDN’T…….Anyone can see the contradiction here.

This is plainly false, and with one fell swoop, can be prove as false. Allow me to quote, IN FULL, the Certificate of Ordination which Birks signed along with Mike Delorys, both acting as Presiding Elders: “Certificate of Ordination: WE, the undersigned, upon the recommendations and REQUEST of Christ Covenant Church, which had full and sufficient opportunity for judging the God-given abilities, and after satisfactory examination by us in regard to the Christian experience, call to the ministry, and views of the Bible doctrine, hereby certify that Samuel Max Frost, was solemnly and publically set apart and ordained to the work of The Gospel Ministry, by the authority and order Given this 20th day of October, 2002. Presiding Elder (Kelly Birks). Presiding Elder (Michael Delorys) (signed).”

Now, who ordained? Who called? Who established? Christ Covenant Church. Birks was following the “orders” of CCC. He followed THEIR recommendations. THEIR request. They, the undersigned, CERTIFIED that I was ordained and set apart by the authority of CCC. Can it not be any clearer than this in our intentions?

7. We categorically deny the idea that our involvement with Mr. Frost’s ordination was nothing more than a “formality” as it is stated here. We do not take ordination in the spirit of a formality. Rather, we see it as a very serious act that must be governed by biblical and historical reformed standards, and so it was.

Response: The FACTS are contrary. It was a formality. We stated that very clearly in the bylaws. Our intentions were always made plain.

8. Birks mentions some issues in previous e-mails I sent which contain some errors on my parts as it concerned the whereabouts of his ministry during these 7 years. I had in my mind that he had moved from Omaha or something to the effect. I am not sure why Birks brings these up, in that these personal e-mails were written BEFORE my formal Response printed on his website. Maybe it is just to distract. But, the fact of the matter is, he wrote, “His ordination was simply transferred into the PCA upon which Dr. Birks was then “licensed” in the PCA, but the PCA never formally ordained Dr. Birks, nor did Dr. Birks ever communicate to Mr. Frost that he was ordained by the PCA.”

Response: I was under the impression, and have always been under the impression, that Birks was ordained (or licensed as an Elder) in the PCA. He never communicated this me, how did I know it? How did it find its way into our bylaws, written in 2002? It was what I took as “licensure” from the PCA serious. We had an Elder from the RCA and the PCA. That was the point. Whatever else Birks wants to make of this, he can. But, from our recollection, it was his PCA affiliation that caught our interests. I do remember the excitement of our conversation here because we had another elder from the RCA to join us, and I thought to myself that an additional elder from the PCA would be great, too. Birks can call me a liar here, but it is the fact.

8. Ordination according to scripture and Presbyterian polity is unto an OFFICE in a local active church, which said office in Dr. Birks’ case, is the office of Elder/Pastor/Teacher of MRC. The authority of this office is derived from the church and any other appointing of Elders, Deacons or the ordaining of another man into the office of Elder/ Pastor, is also derived from said church. This is the Presbyterian practice. Therefore, as much as Mr. Frost would like to deny these facts, he himself by accepting ordination from MRC through TE Birks, derives his own authority to occupy his office from Dr. Birks, who derives his authority from the body of MRC. Acts 13:1-3, 14:23, 1 Tim.4:14, Tit. 1:5. From these passages it is established that MRC is, in fact, the “sending church.”

Response: This, again, is a contradiction to what Birks has already said above. We denied that they were a sending church, and Birks agreed. Now, he asserts that they were, in fact, a sending church. Folks, does this even need to go further? The confusion on this point is obvious. Now, Birks wants to assert his interpretation of Presbyterianism (there are many forms of it) and the Scriptures. This is fine. But, it is neither here nor there, for CCC was NEVER within a Presbyterian denomination. When we use the phrase “principles of Presbyterianism” we are speaking, obviously, very generally. We cannot appeal to any established denomination! We have none! We are independently established and ordained based on what the Presbyterian scholar James Bannerman called, “an unsettled condition of the church” – and that said establishment can gained independently by two things: a call of a congregation (which I had), and the call of God (which I trusted and believed in my conscience). With these two things in place, we sought to have an “official” ceremony wherein we would invite duly established elders from established denominations: PCA and RCA. And, that was it. That’s all. Birks, in his over inflated mind, has made this into something it never, ever was. And, if it was this way, where was this “church” (MRC) for all these years?

The rest of Birks going on about Presbyterianism is pointless. He does write, “If this is true, that Mr. Frost has always held that justification by faith required the additional component of the Parousia in order for it be fully enacted, then Mr. Frost bore false witness to Dr. Birks and Elder Bernhagen when he was examined as to such back in 2002. Also, it was incumbent upon Mr. Frost to have declared any exceptions or scruples to the doctrines enunciated by the WCF if he had any. Personally, Dr. Birks does not believe that Mr. Frost held to these things back in 2002, and that they rather have developed within Mr. Frost since the time of his ordination.” Here is a direct affront by Birks calling me a liar. If these men, these “elders” were so astute as Birks has claimed, then obviously, they are making the case that they are, in fact, not fit to be elders! I mean, let’s really look at this. “Sam deceived us, even though he wrote a book a year prior stating his beliefs publically. So, the egg is on our face in that we did not read Sam’s book, or even know who this deceiver was to begin with. We just took his lies at face value. Man, are we stupid!”

See, since this all based on falsehood, Kelly has told us that we were not under their jurisdiction, then that we were, in fact, under their jurisdiction. That he never told me he was licensed with the PCA, even though I knew it anyway. That I had never believed the things they charged me with in 2002, even though I have a chapter in my book in 2001 called THE PERFECT BODY OF CHRIST which spells out these views. So, Sam Frost lied! That’s how they cover their tracks. That’s the drive by method of Pastor Kelly Birks. Shoot, then run for cover.

The fact of the matter is that Birks confuses his interpretation of ordination in the Bible with what happened at CCC. This is his fault, not ours. We never signed anything to that effect. Therefore, in MY interpretation, and the interpretation of CCC, MY ordination is still valid, because we believe that God’s gifts and callings are not changed by circumstances. I took my vows very seriously that day. I still take them seriously, and still, to some degree, function in that light with RCM (which grew directly out of CCC’s ministry). We may, in fact, start another congregation. I, therefore, do no recognize Birks’ authority in the MRC, or his “court” or this “trial.” It’s just a piece of paper written by confused people at this time, principally lead in confusion by the Pastor.

Some have wanted me to respond to what I meant by “State” laws. In Florida Statutes, one would find something like this: “741.07 Persons authorized to solemnize matrimony.–
(1) All regularly ordained ministers of the gospel or elders in communion with some church, or other ordained clergy, and all judicial officers, including retired judicial officers, clerks of the circuit courts, and notaries public of this state may solemnize the rights of matrimonial contract, under the regulations prescribed by law. Nothing in this section shall make invalid a marriage which was solemnized by any member of the clergy, or as otherwise provided by law prior to July 1, 1978.”

Notice here the phrases, “regularly ordained” and “ordained clergy” etc. This is why we had a notary public sign our document of ordination. It is not the State “recognizing” or “licensing” us. We knew that. It is meant to show, though, that “regularly ordained” has a definition recognized by the Law of Florida – and it is extremely vague so that virtually anyone could establish a church in this State. And, so we did. We were given a tax ID number and all that stuff, and kept records while we were in operation for four years. This is all I meant by such references to the State of Florida.