Rhetoric

January 17, 2012 by Samuel Frost

13 Comments 13 Comments

As a political junkie, I have been following the Republican debates since they started. I get it from my mom, who got it from the Bible. I am no “two kingdoms” advocate (for a great new book by John Frame, see The Escondido Theology, Whitefield Media Publications – it’s selling like hotcakes). I am an advocate of “lesser of two evils” thinking, but that is another blog. The process of finding a Nominee is messy. It sounds like a theological battle in terms of similarity. Don’t be mean. Don’t publish “attack” adds. I found the answer by Ron Paul tonight to be quite amusing. When asked about attack ads (particularly on Santoram), he was asked if he had issue with that? His answer? The 30 or 60 seconds ads was not enough space to cram in all that he wants to say! In other words, if in reporting the facts is an attack, then attack away! Jesus did.

I have been on record for saying I like trench warfare. I recently took my strapping young boys to War Horse. Good movie. The WWI trench battle scenes don’t come close to the actual horrible situation trench warfare was. It was deplorable. And, that got me to thinking, what’s wrong with this process? Does “kindness” mean, “don’t speak the truth”? Of course, people stress, “in love”. Yes, of course. Jesus said to the Pharisees, “in love”, that they were a brood of vipers. Name calling? You bet. The seriousness of that name caused a few of them to weigh the accusation, and some of them became Christians as reported in Acts. Serious accusations and charges causes a few to re-think their position. Why is this person so angry? Why is he pushing this issue so much? Is he just mean, or does he have real, genuine, passionate concern?

If it’s good for politics (and I don’t hear any Chistians supporting Ron Paul decrying the process), then why is it not good for theology? Let’s face it, the Atheists point out the most “embarrassing” parts of Scriptural condemnation in the Bible. There is no smoothing over their quotes. And, of course, you hear the same cry in the political arena of “stop the attacks.” Well, how else is one going to show that this current Administration is abysmal? How are you “nice’ to this when it is wrecking to very foundations of our Founding Fathers? Be nice?

Nice is to be understood in terms of action, not words. Criticism is words. No one advocates not helping a Socialist, or a heretic out of a ditch. Jesus pretty much crushed that in the Parable of the Good Samaritan. However, he corrects a Samaritan woman by saying she was wrong theologically, she did not know the power of God, and that she was an adultress. See the difference?

Usually people decrying “tough love” are those wanting to be not reminded of their error. But, love points out error…..and that’s never pretty.

http://thereignofchrist.com Samuel Frost

In other words, I got no fluff for railing on the “futurists” when I was a Full Preterist. And now, I get all kinds of fluff for railing on the Full Preterist! What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
http://gregoryleonkiser.blogspot.com/ QuantumGreg

Sam, I’m in a battle myself, since leaving FP. One long-time friend (who used to be an atheist, whom also I was instrumental in leading to the Lord) denounced me as wicked and one who calls Jesus a liar. His accusation was I have a soft-sale personality and I use that to manipulate people. He, on the other hand, prides himself in NOT having that and proceeds to name-call, falsely accuse and otherwise rant about my wickedness of “returning to my own vomit” of futurism. Now, from his point of view, as he so aptly stated, I’m a Pharisee and deserve these things. He is Jesus lambasting a Pharisee. He warned all his friends of me. And when my sweet little wife and all 3 of my daughters jumped his case for what he said about me, he jumped on them accusing them they were followers and deceived by my soft-sale personality and egotistical need to be praised. Etc., etc., etc.

So, my problem with what you have said is simply this: I am not Jesus. I do not have His discernment about the hearts of those I’m dealing with. He may show me their hearts, but from my experience, that is never to be used against them. So, rather than using the Jesus-style lambasting of the religious and heretics, I believe it is much more becoming of a Christian man to argue from humility. This would include such caution as not calling the opponent a “fool” (i.e. “Thou raca!”). Why? Because, again, I don’t have the Son of God’s perfect discernment.

Seriously, from my ex-friend’s viewpoint, I’m the devil, and he thinks he is doing the body of Christ good by warning others about me. My reaction to his rants? Nothing. I just stopped responding. All my family consequently disowned him… in awe. There are plenty of wonderful folks who are much more humble and not mean than to have to waste our time with the mean ones. You’ll spend more time trying to clear up what they and you have said than you will talking about scripture… “Well, you said that I said that you said this… and really I said this… and you said this… and that makes me a liar?… blah blah blah…” …ad nauseum. No one reading it is benefited and none of it is enjoyable. EVERYBODY thinks they’re right.

Humility is on short supply in most of these doctrinal discussions. I discovered I can be extremely blunt without being rude and name-calling. Truth is blunt… but not rude. Why? Because, again, I cannot discern the true nature of another man’s heart like Jesus did the Pharisees. So, by default, as a mere man, subject to my own passions and lusts, I must be humble when disagreeing with another man, who, like me, is a mere man subject to his own passions and lusts.

Paul’s disagreement with Peter is probably a good example. Paul’s disagreement with Barnabas over Mark is probably not. And Jesus’ rant on the Pharisees? Well, here’s what He has that we most of the time don’t… He genuinely spoke what He spoke to them from a pure heart and the only motivation was to shake their hearts (provoke them) because He loved them and, as His genuine weeping over Jerusalem shows, wanted them to be gathered into the Kingdom.

I seriously doubt my ex-friend spoke the horrible things he said to me out of that kind of heart and with that kind of motive. IMHO he’s just using Jesus’ rant on the Pharisees as an excuse to jump my case… over an eschatalogical disagreement nonetheless.

Just sayin’…
- Naomi
  
  Can I ask, what made you leave FP? I’ve grown up as an evangelical with a hyperpreterist father and the evidence for both is so conflicting and confusing. I’m desperate to hear reasons why people are leaving FP. If you don’t want to post your answer on here because it is personal I totally understand, perhaps you could e-mail me?
  
  Any of your thoughts would be greatly appreciated
  - sam
    
    well, my journey as a former Full Preterist teacher/leader has been pretty much documented on this website. The several articles here are mostly related to this departure. We have made it public (Jason Bradfield has left too, as well as several others). Once the old arguments that we once found as insurmountable were loosened, it was then easy to spot many of the errors Full Preterists make (’cause I made them myself!). Full Preterism, as we have shown, is not so insurmountable as its adherents claim.
  - http://miniondominion.thereignofchrist.com Jason Bradfield
    
    Naomi, i have written a short testimony in the past as to why i left, but have never posted it here. I updated the intro just a tad and posted it here just for you. ( :
    
    http://thereignofchrist.com/why-i-left-full-preterism/
  - http://gregoryleonkiser.blogspot.com/ QuantumGreg
    
    Naomi, below Jason’s testimony article I explained why I left. My journey is not complete simply because I have not rebuilt what fell.
Ken Palmer

Naomi, it is when we redefine terms to suit our own personal views, like death, resurrection, etc. What seems to me to be the trouble is it becomes and either/or situation, when in fact, it really wasn’t. For example, when Christ said, you are dead in your sins. He is using death, to accentuate and metaphorically describe what it means to sin without repentance. In essence, the result is the same. Death, and no hope, of resurrection.

I, like Sam and many others, was once an FP, but when I got to some of the most crucial doctrines that define what I believe to be the Christian hope, the door opened up, and the errors were flashing in neon lights.
PaulT

Sam,

Talk about “rhetoric” this is rather interesting. In response to an expose I wrote, http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=5557, pointing out the misrepresentation of Dr. G.K. Beale’s view by McKenzie and Mike Sullivan one of Mike’s colleagues wrote,

“Hi Mike,
I was just laughing this last weekend when I was doing a study and ran across an article on the gathering/resurrection.It wasn’t on the topic I was researching, so I didn’t mark it, but I’ll see if I can retrace my steps. It WAS a good study and maybe Paul T. would benefit from it. It’s pretty obvious he doesn’t have a good grasp on full preterism therefore he’ll never be very successful at trying to refute it.It doesn’t take long for others to notice that too. I have had comments from some of my orthodox friends about it. lol
Dorothy”

Setting aside the fact this sounds like false bravado especially given the fact as pointed out in the link above Mr. Sullivan has concede the concept of resurrection is NOT explicitly taught in Matt 24:30,31. What I think is interesting is the comment regarding alleged orthodox “friends”. The implication of the statement seems to be orthodox friends of the poster have been following the dispute, presumably reading postings over at Perteristblog and Preterist Cosmos. Why I think this is interesting is I wonder what the posters orthodox “friends” think of the RINO’s apparent agreement with Robin who wrote some of the most confused and clearly heretical claims regarding Christ Jesus. Robin wrote,

“I am more interested in how they think that the incarnation added a 2nd (foreign?) nature to God which He apparently didn’t have before. And how it is they think that God could even make man in His own image without having some intimate knowledge of what a human nature is before the incarnation? If this
dual nature must be retained by God above all else, then Jesus must have had that glory with the Father beforehand because that is the glory He returned to!

Rather than suppose about such things, why is it not enough to know that when Christ walked the earth, He did so fully in the form of a man like all others but in connection with the Father as was the purpose with the creation of Adam in the beginning. Does the presence of the Spirit of God make us now have a
dual nature as well? Or is it only the presence of sin that causes such schizophrenia? Because Jesus knew no sin – not then, not now. Therefore the incarnation didn’t require that a ‘new’ nature be given to Him, but that He live a godly life in the flesh within the limits imposed upon this life.

It is only the flesh life in which sin can exist because the quest for sustaining our physical life is innate to our life in this earth and therefore subject to excess. We eat too much, we drink too much, we strive and battle for preeminence, because it is the flesh that drives us. But when the Spririt comes in, a new power comes as well, and the flesh is put in subjection to the Spririt where before it ruled. If such an incarnation creates a new nature in us then it is only because the old must go! One nature is all that is needed – one in which God is the driving force. And Jesus came into this earth with that nature firmly intact! A nature that neither sin nor death could defile, showing us perfectly what a man created in the image of God is supposed to be.

Whether or not Jesus’ body is still composed molecularly of ‘glorified’ cells now, is so not the issue in preterism. It does however seem to be a bit of a stumble for those who want to maintain this ‘dual nature’ teaching. Because like all of their doctrines, it is really about this life only…for them.”

Truly some really strange mixed up thinking going on there. However, given the site is administered by Docetic Dave Green it appears he condones the rank heresy included in Robins written statement. At least if he doesn’t condone the heretical claims in Robin’s “Rant” you would never know it by the protestation he and he colleagues have offered in response. I wonder what the poster’s orthodox “friends” think of the RINO’s total silence in setting Robin straight. Are we to assume based on their silence they agree with Robin?

God Bless,
sam

Paul, we could play their game and just say that Dorothy is lying about her “orthodox friends”. They don’t believe anything we say, anyway. There is absolutely no openmindedness there whatsoever. Paul is an idiot. Sam is a sellout for greed and pride, and Jason is the meanest man on earth. How does one argue with people who think this about you? You can’t (as we have shown). They just quote time texts in response, then call us liars. That’s pretty much their argument these days: quote some time texts, then shout, “liar”. Lame with a capital “L”.
http://miniondominion.thereignofchrist.com Jason Bradfield

If a wise man has an argument with a fool,
the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet.
Bloodthirsty men hate one who is blameless
and seek the life of the upright.
A fool gives full vent to his spirit,
but a wise man quietly holds it back.

(Proverbs 29:9-11 ESV)
http://thereignofchrist.com Samuel Frost

The question is, at what point do you ignore? The clamorings of Pret Compost are many.
http://gregoryleonkiser.blogspot.com/ QuantumGreg

Sam, man, that is a good question. It is like the common dilemma Solomon stated so succinctly:

Proverbs 26
4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you also be like him.
5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.

Currently, I am finding great peace at ignoring my antagonist. I mean, after all, if arguing does no good, and not arguing does no good, then not arguing is better for me at the moment. It is peaceful, and currently, I need a break.
Ken Palmer

Jason – sounds like Jerry Bowers? :)

Share with your friends!