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.
Hey Sam,
When i posted the article from Dr. Birks site i was under the impression that you knew about it as it had a response by you.
I imagine we have all been defrocked by better men then Kelly at one time or another being the heretics we are :)
Scargy (deathisdefeated)
Hey, Sam. I feel really bad for you that they have done this so publicly and without consultation with you. I think people like that are just dishonest and bad but trying to make themselves look bad. You are probably much better off without them. If you want to be able to continue to perform marriages, find out what your state requires you to do as a registrar rather than ordained person. I know it is abit against the grain, but then it can not be taken from you.
Take comfort from God. He is obviously moving you well away from this mob and you are better off away from them.
I hope you will be able to eventually forgive them, hard though it is.
Hang in there.
Since I am a girl, I can write:
(((hugs)))
Sam – when I emailed you the day after this was posted publically I also assumed you knew Birks had it on his website and my only intention was to encourage you by showing you the responses from the DID group. The fact that even after some recent bantering back and forth with them they still showed support for you in this situation. But I know that you know my heart on this so I won't belabor the point.
I agree with Martin's comments (Kelly Birks Lies) and pray that you are lifted up through this whole process. Blessings my friend. W
Good to know that partial-preterist Kelly Birk's is still being a troublemaker. Jason, I would not give him any platform in the future. Sorry for being harsh.
(kelly Birks partial preterist) lol thats not far from dispensational :). Sam, Just keep publishing, writing, exposing falsehood/contridictions ect. You know your on the right track when people begin to attack instead of exegete.
For those who claim to be creedalist and yet do not hold to the creeds, I do not put to much stock in what they say. All of these attacks are nothing more than attempts to save a crumbling system, and we all know those attempts will not survive.
BLESSINGS
GODSDOZER
“(kelly Birks partial preterist) lol thats not far from dispensational” Yes, Darrell to me KB is nothing more than a futurist – he has never been a consistent Full- Preterist. I saw this coming along way off. – Bryan Lewis.
Just as a point of clarification, Sam was sent by registered mail, the letter of the trial results the exact same day that the results were posted on our website. Sam has the letter by now and it was sent to his business address as this is the only address we could locate, being unable to find his home address in either the white or even yellow pages.
Bryan, I am not a partial preterist. I would appreciate it if you would please cease to refer to me as such.
Wanda, i'm sorry you have chosen to believe that i have lied.
There's really nothing more that I can say as to the historicity of these matters. Both myself and Elder Bernhagen have vivid memories of examining Sam on the phone as to the WCF. There's no point any longer bantering back and forth on the matter.
Dr. B…
Kelly,
A full-preterist believes in fulfilled redemption; you clearly do not. Therefore, I make no apologies and do not feel it is a mis-representation.
Bryan Lewis
Bryan,
Your statement above assumes that by me saying that am not a PP, the I must be trying to say i am a FP. Like i have been saying for years now (since '04), I am NOT a FP.
Please catch up…
Dr. B…
Certainly, though it took me awhile to realize that you are not FP (made clear at your conference last April). I would like to know what you refer to yourself. Certainly, anything less than FP is a form of Futurism. – Bryan
Bryan,
I refer to myself as simply “Preterist” in the dictionary defined term. Of course I hold to “future things” that are prophetically pronounced in scripture that are ether occurring since AD 70 or are yet to occur. As to the Parousia, I believe that it occurred in AD 70 and that said Parousia has on-going ramifications and results relative to the future and to our seeing at some point in history the person of Christ here on this earth.
Sorry if you don't like this but that is what I believe. The sum total of my eschatology, places me outside both the PP and FP camp.
Dr. B…
Bryan,
BTW, what was it that I said back at the April conference that made you believe I was not a FP?
Thanks,
Dr.B…
Kelly,
Thank You for the clarification as I did gather this much, from your two books and your conference last year. As for me not liking it – that is a childish response, which lack intelligent discourse. I simply disagree as a result of my hermeneutics and exegesis of scripture.
Bryan
Kelly,
Specifically, the fact that you were against a corporate view of Resurrection, which absolutely showed that you believe that a man receives glorification upon the death of his physical body. You clearly showed that you believe essentials are added to an individual upon physical death. Others could be mentioned as well that has to do with “sanctification”, etc…
Bryan Lewis
Bryan,
I appreciate you testifying that both of my books and my presentation from the April conference demonstrated that I am not a FP. So no one should be able to say that since '04, I have attempted to pass myself off as a FP.
Appreciate it!
Dr. B…
Kelly,
I have been saying for sometime, that you are not a full-preterist. I decided this specifically after reading your book, “End of Sin”.
Bryan Lewis
We have to make a distinction here between Messiah Reformed Church in Omaha, and Messiah Reformed Church in Ft. Myers, Florida, pastored by Alan Bondar. There are several Preterist churches (even one in India pastored by Prabhu Das) that are doing well (Dave Curtis' comes to mind, Jack Scott's, Joseph Vincent). I am all for church building. I would like to write a series on Church government for the Age to Come communities. I believe Paul saw from afar that there would be established congregations, and I believe he laid out the principles for such establishments (elders and deacons).
The book we utilized a great deal was James Bannerman's “The Church of Christ” (two volumes), which can be found in its entire publication on Google Books. What is so fascinating about this work is that Bannerman uses the phrase “transition generation” (the book was written in the 19th century). He also outlines how a chuch can be established when there is no recognized ordaining authority: the Call of a Congregation, and the Call of God. Jesus is the Chief Shepherd, and thus ordains by the Call a local congregation.
In Preterist theology, we have to argue for the case of establishment in Ecclesiology. Some of you may remember years ago my scrapes with Roderick Edwards, who, then as a Preterist, was arguing AGAINST elders, rulers, leaders, etc. within any established “church” meeting. Some of this falls into the work of Frank Viola (Pagan Christianity), Towards A House Church and Ekklesia: The Roots of Biblical Church Life (both by Steve Atkerson). Peter Leithart's Against Christianity is also good. It may be along these lines that Preterist Ecclesiology can work out its systematic arguments on this matter.
Obviously, we sought independency. I think my fault was in bringing in too much to establish some need for legitimacy in my eyes. Thus, we brought in Birks and Delorys. Delorys has never been a problem, and was a member in good standing with our congregation. The lesson I have learned here is watch who you link yourself to! It has caused me to drift further to the veiws of Viola and Atkerson (though not entirely – I have to go back through those works in my library).
Preterists first and foremost have the correct Eschatology because we seek to be as biblical as possible. We would hold ourselves to the same standard here. Larry Siegle and I have been batting around these things for recognition, and perhaps it is a step in the right direction. Preterism is slowly becoming organized since its reappearance in the late twentieth century. Some will resist any effort to organize. But, as we have seen in my case, what constitutes a Full Preterist is critical, for Birks (since 2004 he says) moved away from Full Preterism, and that has lead to the debacle he has caused here.
Dr. Talbot's words are wise: “You can't stand for everything, or you stand for nothing.” Amen.
Sam,
“I think my fault was in bringing in too much to establish some need for legitimacy in my eyes.” I have been guilty of this as well… I have also read Viola's book… – Hang in there Sam…
Bryan Lewis
Dr. Birks – you said “Wanda, i'm sorry you have chosen to believe that i have lied.”
Are you refering to my statement above? “I agree with Martin's comments (Kelly Birks Lies) and pray that you are lifted up through this whole process.”
Because I wasn't saying that I thought you lied but I was referencing the thread that Martin made some excellent comments on … the name of that thread is “Kelly Birks Lies”.
But, since you brought it up I will admit that I can only go on what is in front of me and it seems to me that Sam has clearly shown that you have made mistatements (lied) and while I hate to believe you would have done that with malicious intent – especially since you have been so kind and caring to me the past few weeks – I don't know what else to believe.
Kelly,
Glad you responded. It really does not matter how we remember it. I don't have any recollection of any “thorough” investigation as to what I believed at the time. But, it has been PROVEN that I did believe the things in 2001 that you say I didn't. That is beyond doubt. The only recourse you have in this is that I “decieved” you. This makes no sense, since that would be completely stupid on my part with a new book out detailing what I believed! I mean, all you would have to do is read the third chapter to see that I was “deceiving” you guys.
You wrote, “There's really nothing more that I can say as to the historicity of these matters. Both myself and Elder Bernhagen have vivid memories of examining Sam on the phone as to the WCF. There's no point any longer bantering back and forth on the matter.”
But, this the problem. Where have I, on record, used the word “effectual at the parousia” in regards to Justification. Where have I, on record, used the word “formless” in regards to our eternal state? This was a court, no? What records did you use? How did you prove beyond doubt that I was “guilty”?
Yes, our memory may be fuzzy, but you have written a recent document that is not fuzzy at all. Yet, you have no proof that I ever wrote “effectual” or “formless”, or that I did not believe these things in 2001. Clearly, brother, the burden of proof is heavily on you, and as I have demonstrated, it would appear to be incontrovertible to prove otherwise. Therefore, I am left with the assessment that I have of you and your “court.” And, so is practically everyone else. Heck, even the BCS crowd can see this…..!
I'm trying to figure out how Dr. Birks claims to “not be” a partial preterist, when, by his own definition, he believes in the past fulfillment of the parousia, yet, a future fulfillment of the physical return of Christ to the earth? This is textbook (dictionary) partial preterism. This is semantics to be quite honest, since preterism by definition is not limited to “full” or “partial” in any respect, but simply means “past fulfillment” to some degree. I am confused as to “which passages” does Dr. Birks believe to be “yet fulfilled” which indicate a future consumation during which time Jesus is said to return “physically” to the earth to reign forever in a body, in a physical throne, in the physical city of Jerusalem? This question should be quite easy to answer, since the analogy of Scripture should be easy for Dr. Birks to point out to all of us, which passages are yet to be fulfilled. If these passages can be given, then we might be able to better define exactly “what kind of preterist” Dr. Birks is.
I am a full/hyper/complete/covenant/reformed preterist (take your pick). I am also Covenant Body View, with continual application today for all who come to faith in Christ (instant resurrection and glorification) concerning the resurrection. I believe the entire camp of “Preterists” that belong to these views is clearly defined, or at least is emerging in it's own right.
If I am correct, and I believe that based on Dr. Birks own statements, he is of a form of partial preterist (or Historic Preterist) thought, which is a modified form of RCA/PCA theology on eschatology and resurrection. I don't know of any other RCA or PCA members of leadership within the RCA/PCA who hold to exactly what Dr. Birks does (although I'm still not sure what he believes with regard to which passages are yet to be unfulfilled), although I can't deny that these other members exist. I also don't know of anything in the WCF that would agree with Dr. Birks theology in it's entirety, and so I'm not sure how he, or anyone else for that matter, stands on this confession for “legitimate ordination.” Does Dr. Birks believe that the Catholic Pope is the antiChrist? Which portions of the WCF does Dr. Birks choose to accept and reject? If he rejects some, how then does this confession provide authority for him to ordain through the RCA/PCA?
Ordination is nothing more than a superficial agreement between agreeing parties to unify efforts for the cause of Christ. It is a mature body, or organization of Christians stating that another person is mature enough to be a minister. The problem is that members of the PCA/RCA would never ordain a Baptist, or a Pentecostal, etc., and so ordination has nothing to say about maturity in reality, but only in doctrinal agreement with said ordaining party, with the addition that the individual being ordained is mature as a Christian.
Since Dr. Birks is clearly not a “full preterist” and since he is adamant about attacking those who do hold to this persuasion, I believe that it is appropriate that no one from within the full preterist camp attempt or desire ordination or union with Dr. Birks or Messiah Reformed Church of Omaha.
God bless Dr. Birks and his ministry, but there is no unity those who wish to divide…and so I recommend to all on this site to dust your feet, move on, and seek Godly unions with others who don't attack, and who seek to unify.
Might I suggest also, that we join in the efforts of Tom Joseph of At The Well Ministries, and also with Ed Stevens of IPA, for the sake of future ordination among the full preterist camp? We need to unite friends, and we need to be clear with one another that we are not going to attack each other on non-essentials, and that we are going to be supportive of each other as we agree in unity on the clear teachings of Scripture. For anyone seeking ordination from IPA or ATWM to pursue preterist ministries, please contact Tom Joseph or Ed Stevens for more information.
Just to emphasize something that Sam said: Messiah Reformed Church in Fort Myers, FL is a different church than the one Birks pastors. I don't want our church to end up being linked to this situation.
Because of His grace,
Alan
Guys, i apologize for the thread. Birks was on moderation, but apparently the WP settings were not read by Disqus when i switched over from IntenseDebate, thus he got through. And all this while i was at work. I have him back on moderation because frankly, the only thing i want to see from him is a retraction of his false claims made in the trial statement.
I do not want the seriousness of his charges getting lost with chat about what he wrote in '04 or whether or not he's a preterist. I could care less.
What i care about is Birks defending the charges he made in the trial statement, and as of right now, he's doing a lousy job.,,even fudging now, “There's no point any longer bantering back and forth on the matter.”
Birks, if you wish to address these charges, put it on your site and i'll consider sharing that here. Other than that, i don't care to have you posting here, ignoring the more serious matter. Plus, you are still technically under moderation from your first offense here when you decided to not work with me in cleaning up one of your posts that had violated our rules and ran over to another site.
I believe we have been more than generous in giving you a platform to speak, especially at SGP. Sorry, but those days are over.
Sam, I would suggest that we seek to unite our leadership, our elders, on the essential matters as delivered by Paul, and Christ. That maybe we move to create a revised 9.5 thesis, or a Statement of Faith on essentials of Christian-Preterist faith. If we can get our elders, leaders, and foremost scholars within our movement to agree on the things that unite us all (with leeway on many other issues), then can't we legitimize our own movement in unity? Men like David Curtis, William Bell, Brian Lewis, Brian Martin, Sam Frost (yourself), Don Preston, Alan Bondar, David Green, Michael Sullivan, Michael Loomis, Ed Stevens, Edward Hassert, Tom Joseph, and on and on. What would be so bad with providing official ordination from within our group for those who seek to unite with us? If we truly believe that preterism is the true Gospel delivered to us all, and if we truly believe that futurism is a disease or a twisted interpretation of Scripture, then we should be sold out to pursuing the advancement of delivering this true message of a fulfilled Gospel. It might help if we have a Biblical Theology work by our mightiest leaders to help in advancing this theology for those in our camp who wish to pursue ministry in the IPA (if we should decide to call our united affiliation by this name). It might also help for future scholastic advancement and for seeking regional accreditation in the future if we are able to provide educational training for those seeking ministry education or seminary training through our organization. Could you imagine if we were able to begin our own Seminary or school with the leaders of our group providing cd/online/book form training to Christians and pastors out there wanting credit for their education? Don has a good idea with PRI, although I think we could broaden his vision to a complete seminary structure, including preterism as our foundation. Think of something like “Covenant Reformation Institute” or “Covenant Reformation Seminary.” Maybe I'm thinking a little big here, and maybe a little ahead of myself, but the possibilities are endless if we can unite.
What do you think? The combining of resources among the fast growing movement of preterism should be applauded and reinforced as much as possible. I can't see any reason why anyone would seek to not advance this movement except for fear of causing further division. However, the lack of unity among preterists is already causing great division…so how can we lose?
Pastor Joe – I agree with your basic premise of creating a more unified front with regards to educating and nurturing pastors and elders to then be able to spread the Word to all. But I think that you are suggesting that the cart be put before the horse. Is ordination even neccesary? Isn't it biblically a call from God and a call from the LOCAL congregation? Isn't that all that is required?
I am all for the preterist pastor to have the certificate on the wall and to have the big celebration dinner but if that is what they are striving for then their local flock is doomed from the start. That is one reason why I knew Alan Bondar was “in it” for the right reasons as he isn't hung up on having that paper on the wall – at least the Alan I have known in the past never was.
However, I also know that while he may have the calling to be a pastor he (and all pastors) need to have that accountability, fellowship, guidance and shepherding from more mature pastors in order to grow and effectively minister to their local flock. Only when these pastors are able to truly minister and shepherd their local flocks should they then look to branch outward and become pastors to other isolated and alone people. So, if what your thinking of includes a strong foundation for nurturing pastors and elders FIRST then I think that it will be a successful ministry that blesses many.
I have seen how much passion so many people have to proclaim the truth of the GOSPEL here…and also preterism but sometimes it seems like preterism becomes the focus and the gospel becomes a secondary thought. And that is when the heated discussions surface because the differences abound in the views of eschatology NOT the Gospel. You want to have a unified front? Get back to basics and then allow the rest to grow into what God has willed it to be.
You have many men with the talents, passions, and spiritual gifts to make this and more happen but you also have many men and women out there that can be helpers to the ones who are called to be pastors and elders – ones who God has also given the talents, passion, gifts and desire to glorify Him. Not utilizing those helpers is not only a travesty but it is unbiblical.
I am sorry if I have offended anyone by speaking my mind in this post. I greatly respect each of you and I am grieved over the actions that Dr. Birks has taken. But, I know that Sam will be even stronger because of it because he has a strong support network.
As far as confusing the two Messiah Reformed Churches – I think it is pretty clear they are two separate identities that now share a name only but I hope Fort Myers never forgets how Dr. Birks and his congregation helped them in the beginning when Alan was first planting his church with his group of eight.
Blessings, Wanda
Hey Joseph,
I share that same vision; especially a Seminary; as I have shared this with Don and Sam, in the past. For me, full-consistent preterism is critical, in that, it is my opinion, there is not a full/correct understanding of the gospel without one understanding the implications of fulfilled redemption. This has been the error of Systematic Theology, it has attempted to systematize the scripture; thus, separating major themes in the Bible into separate categories known as doctrines. In other words, Systematic Theology seeks to organize theology and doctrine around fairly disconnected standard categories. It is my opinion, that this practice alienates doctrines that are otherwise joined at the hip and often causes the Biblical writers original point to be missed; especially soteriological points. In other words, we must not separate our eschatology and soteriology. Ok, now I am off the subject. LOL!
Wanda,
I agree with all your points and concerns. The idea of “official oridination” for pastors and leaders within a church isn't for the certificate or the pastors of said church, it's primarily for the people who are members of the church so that they know and have some idea of the credentials of the pastor they are going to be listening to. You wouldn't go to a doctor if they didn't have any credentials posted or available upon request. The calling of local members into ministry is done at the local level, and they may be ordained by the elders, leaders, pastors of the church they are members of, however, as you stated, those elders, leaders, and pastors should have accountability from somewhere…and their individual calling should be joined and ordained by other people who have knowledge of their background, education, abilities, and personal life which makes them qualified and fit to lead any ministry. This is the Biblical model, and the qualifications for those who perform various duties within the church is fairly clearly spelled out.
The problem for us preterists is that the only people who might ordain (give their blessings on) our pastors to begin a church, or start a ministry are other preterists…I don't know of any church or other organization who will currently support, ordain, or help a preterist start a church. This is a problem. Imagine me trying to start a church, and inviting new members into our church, and then having to explain to them that I have no supporting authority or parent body, and that I am doing it alone? Few people will want to be a part of that.
Also, I agree with you about the focus on “preterism” in ministry. It has been very important for our online ministries to teach this, and to proclaim it from the rooftops (per se), and to write numerous books, articles, etc., and even the videos from Brian Martin and things like that are incredibly helpful, but I believe the one element missing from us are men and women who desire to plant churches to preach the Gospel and to spread the love of God without making preterism the main point of emphasis.
In my church I am going to houses, businesses, and everywhere to invite people to join us for a church launch meeting, and during these meetings preterism won't even be discussed. It's our goal to spread the Gospel message, invite all who might come, and as we disciple and grow leaders in our church, and as we begin to give messages during our services, the preterist aspect of the gospel will be a reality and something that will be clear from the Bible. However, I won't be preaching “preterism” from the pulpit…I will be preaching the Gospel. Preterism will probably only be mentioned as people ask questions, and in leadership training as we discuss our statement of faith for leaders desiring to teach and lead in our church.
Like I said, preterist ministries on the web are great, but we don't need more local preterist ministries…we need more churches where preterism just happens to be our eschatological paradigm (no different than any other church has a futurist eschatological paradigm). You never see futurists preaching “futurism” from the pulpit, it simply comes out as they teach the Word. It's almost “assumed” as correct as they explain passages, without having to explain that this teaching is “futurism.” In the same way, preterism should be an assumed truth as we teach the Word, spreading the Gospel message, not the preterist message.
Leave the “Preterist” ministries to the web, the scholars of our camp, and the future schools and seminaries that might be established. We need more pastors and leaders to evangelize our communities with the Gospel, united with a preterist backbone.
Birks: “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.”
Birks was nuked into sub-atomic particles on this issue (the eschatological “already but not yet” of justification) in the PretCosmos discussion group and at Larry Siegle's PreterismDebate forum and in Sam's article. It has been established with finality that many Reformed teachers, and the Scriptures, radically disagree with Birks on this:
“Now it was not written for [Abraham's] sake alone, that [righteousness] was imputed to him; but for us also, to whom [righteousness] is about to be imputed. . . ” Rom. 4:23,24).
The above passage of Scripture was quoted and quoted and quoted to Birks, over and over and over at PretCosmos and at PreterismDebate. Birks' response? He ignored it like a man with his fingers in his ears. Why did he ignore it? Because the imputation of righteousness (i.e., justification) in that scripture is (was) FUTURE. Birks simply cannot abide that. So when it came to a choice between Birks and Scripure, Birks chose Birks.
Other clear and incontrovertible scriptural arguments were presented to Birks. He was not able to provide anything that resembled a coherent answer to the Scriptures. In the end, Birks “response” was to run away from the scriptural arguments (as is his pattern and habit when he is wrong).
It is a settled fact that the Bible and many Reformed men (such as Herman Ridderbos and John Piper) teach that God's people are finally justified in the Parousia. Case closed. The only person condemned on this point is the good “doctor” (?) Kelly Birks.
Dave
Birks: “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.”
Birks was nuked into sub-atomic particles on this issue (the eschatological “already but not yet” of justification) in the PretCosmos discussion group and at Larry Siegle's PreterismDebate forum and in Sam's article. It has been established with finality that many Reformed teachers, and the Scriptures, radically disagree with Birks on this:
“Now it was not written for [Abraham's] sake alone, that [righteousness] was imputed to him; but for us also, to whom [righteousness] is about to be imputed. . . ” Rom. 4:23,24).
The above passage of Scripture was quoted and quoted and quoted to Birks, over and over and over at PretCosmos and at PreterismDebate. Birks' response? He ignored it like a man with his fingers in his ears. Why did he ignore it? Because the imputation of righteousness (i.e., justification) in that scripture is (was) FUTURE. Birks simply cannot abide that. So when it came to a choice between Birks and Scripure, Birks chose Birks.
Other clear and incontrovertible scriptural arguments were presented to Birks. He was not able to provide anything that resembled a coherent answer to the Scriptures. In the end, Birks “response” was to run away from the scriptural arguments (as is his pattern and habit when he is wrong).
It is a settled fact that the Bible and many Reformed men (such as Herman Ridderbos and John Piper) teach that God's people are finally justified in the Parousia. Case closed. The only person condemned on this point is the good “doctor” (?) Kelly Birks.
Dave