Larry and I talk quite a bit during the week, usually when I am at work. So, there is no beef in this piece, but a warm welcome for him to post here and clarify what he means when, on Pret Cosmos, he writes, “For example, there is every reason to disagree with Sam Frost in his current position and some of the logical conclusions that are implied by that position. However, taking the battle to his doorstep may simply continue to drive him further in his present position. Does he need loving correction? Yes. Is he listening to those who accuse him of having adopted a postmillennial/partial preterist, hermeneutic? Not at the moment. We need to creatively find a better way to develop a collaborative framework through which the foundation correction necessary can be administer and where Sam (and others) are not forced into a theological corner…Pray for him. I do, each and every day, asking God for the wisdom and the words to help him see some of the conclusions he has reached may be logical, but are not what is necessarily implied by the text.”
Let’s break this down, shall we? There is “every reason to disagree with Sam Frost.” What are they? Every reason? I have yet to see one, Larry – except “paradox” – which we both reject. Care to offer some more “reasons”?
What is my “current position”? 1. I deny infinite procreation, which, we have found out in this debate many other Preterists do as well – opting for a “maybe” end of the world. This begs the question, Larry, that if the Bible is so, so clear on infinite procreation, then there is no maybe about it – baby making will go on ad infinitum. It is either taught in the Scriptures or it is not (or maybe it is just an “inference” that is not “necessarily implied” by the texts used to support such a view – which would sort of place us in the same boat, eh?).
“Taking the battle to his doorstep” may drive me further in my current position? And here I thought I was operating on studying, exegeting, and using logic in order to form my convictions about what the Bible says. I thought I have made this clear to you in numerous ways. I want this battle on my doorstep. I invited it. At first I was accused of all sorts of “motivations” and the like – even that Talbot taught me this view (in fact, he recently e-mailed citing our differences – go figure). But, this comment makes it sound like that I am driven by some sort of emotional booh booh. Nope. Not in the slightest. Not even close. If anything, Larry, Roderick Edwards has so offended me that one would think I would do anything not to side with him on anything if that were my motivation. The fact that he has even chimed in “agreeing” with me on an end to history makes me a little ill. But, that doesn’t stop me. Biblical exegesis and logic does. And so far, I have heard little of each, and a “paradox” loving from a few. Not anwers in my book.
Do I need loving correction? I would love to see it! Unfortunately, it ain’t happening. That would require a full refutation of what I have written thus far. Have not seen one. Am I listening? You bet! I visit Death is Defeated daily, and Pret Cosmos daily. I read it all. I don’t comment on those sites, but that does not mean I am not reading them. In fact, my recent paper on Beyond Creation Science shows I am reading DID. And, lo and behold, Tim Martin asserts my “goal” to a tee! So, where’s the correction for his postmillenialISH leanings?
Yes, pray for me, as I pray for you and the others (you know that). And, yes, we can collaborate – it’s just that I don’t have to collaborate with some. I choose to collaborate with Dave Green, or Jeff Vaughn and maybe some others, but there are some that I won’t do that with. My choice. No big deal there. I am not obligated to respond to everyone.
I await your response, or better yet…..I might just call you write now! :)