Dr. Talbot on Whitefield Student Samuel Frost
Dr. Kenneth Talbot Speaks from the Grave
* While digging around the official WTS computer, I found a Word doc from Dr. Talbot titled "For the Record," dated 09/28/2010. Lo and behold, Dr. T explained how Sam Frost became a student at WTS, how he found out about Sam's hyper-preterism, and how he responded. I share this with Sam's permission. I could not have asked for a better find in light of Gary DeMar's pathetic attempt to portray Dr. T and Whitefield as compromisers with hyper-preterism. DeMar's claim that "WTS was very accepting of full preterists at one time" is false. His claim that "Talbot accepted and welcomed him with open arms when he was a FPist" is false. His claim that WTS was "granting degrees to many of these guys" is false. DeMar wants to know what happened, yet I have attempted to answer him on American Vision's FB page, and they deleted my answer and blocked me. - Jason
---
For the Record:
Samuel Frost entered Whitefield Theological Seminary on April 15th, 1998. He decided on Whitefield because he had already been studying the writings of Calvin, Clark, Luther, Bahnsen, Rushdoony, DeMar, Gentry, the Westminster Confession of Faith, etc. His statement of faith that was submitted to the seminary demonstrates what his personal views at that time were on the doctrines of justification and sanctification in particular. When interviewed for enrollment, Samuel confirmed at that time he was Reformed, committed to the abiding validity of the Moral Law of God on all men, especially Christians, Preterist Postmillennialist. He was received and we immediately began discussing theology and philosophy because he had already read most of Clark and much of Calvin’s Institutes, not to mention other theological systematics. Most of the conversations were dealing with both systematics and apologetics (my area of emphasis in the seminary). My only regret was that I spent little discussion on eschatology at that time. In 2001 Samuel had completed the M.A. degree, having transferred 14 credit hours from the Church of God School of Theology and Reformed Theological Seminary. In January of 2003 I received a copy of “Misplaced Hope.” I knew that Samuel was working on a book, but with as many students that I am in contact with daily, I only asked that he send me a copy for review. It was sometime in 2003 when Samuel ask to come over to the Seminary for a visit to discuss some apologetical issues and that was when he brought the book with him. To my surprise, in the acknowledgement section he had written the following:
This work was written while completing my graduate studies at Whitefield Theological Seminary. From that seminary I have acquired invaluable tools for discipline and cultivation of resources in the Protestant and Reformed faith. For that I owe Dr. Kenneth Talbot large thanks. Although he MAY NOT BE IN AGREEMENT WITH MY CONCLUSIONS (bold is mine), he nonetheless has inspired my undertaking to justify what I do under the rubric of the Protestant and Reformed tradition.
Three things this statement demonstrates: (1) Samuel Frost maintained that his commitment was to Protestant and Reformed tradition. I have never known Samuel to deny this; (2) He knew that his conclusions were juxtaposed to the Protestant and Reformed tradition; (3) Samuel already knew that I would not accept his conclusions being Reformed. Why is that important? Because until I got a copy of this book, I did not know what conclusions Samuel had determined to believe. There was only one time that I can remember that this conversation over the hyperpreterism had taken place (yes, in spite of false representations about me, I had been in numerous discussions about hyperpreterism with both David Chilton, enrolled in 1984, and Kenneth Gentry, enrolled in 1985, both graduates of Whitefield Theological Seminary). The only conversation that ever came close to any depth in eschatological studies with Samuel was when he asked me if I had ever heard of ‘full-preterism?’ He will remember that I then told him that that was a doctrinal teaching considered heretical by Confessional Standards as was determined from exegetical and hermeneutical determinations of Evangelical and Reformed scholars throughout the history of the Church. So, “may” was really more “will not be in full agreement with my conclusions.” After completing the M.A.R. in June 2004, Samuel came over to the seminary and presented me with another book on the Resurrection. I had one conversation about this topic in light of Samuel reading N. T. Wright’s book on ‘The Resurrection of the Son of God’ which was published in 2003. My perception was that Samuel’s thinking was moving back towards Evangelical standards on eschatology. Needless to say, I was both surprised and disappointed at the exegetical position taken by Samuel. This book was published in 2004. Samuel has never denied that this doctrinal position is by Reformed standards heretical, he has even put that in writing (review my postings on this issue).
Since that time I have been confrontational with Samuel about his hyperpreterism. I am a pastor, so my approach must follow St. Paul’s didactic in 2 Timothy 2:24-26: And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will.With Samuel’s permission, the one thing that Samuel did come to me with privately was the inconsistency of Reformed theology with the ‘full preteristic’ doctrine. He could not reconcile the two theologies into one systematic theory. Most of our discussions in 2006 and onward were about this conflict of systems. There were little discussions in late 2004 through to early 2006 because I had a ‘mild stroke’ and had lost areas of memory that needed to be filled in once again through personal study. In 2007 and 2008, Samuel still could not reconcile Reformed theology and his understanding of full preterism. He was trying to adjust and synthesize the doctrines, but each time the inconsistencies were unresolved. When the ‘taco lunches’ took place, they were primarily about this problem. I wrote about this - if some of you remember - about the fact that Reformed theology and full preterism were inconsistent. As a matter of fact, I quoted Samuel and Dave Green both noting that as they were trying to make adjustments for consistency, they were changing the definitions and meanings of the historic Reformed faith. Green called it ‘tweaking’ Reformed doctrine - a theology he does not understand, or he would have never taken a position against the historic teaching of Reformed theology on the doctrine of “infinity,” a doctrine that I continue to follow in the Reformed tradition, which Samuel had clearly adopted long before he attended Whitefield Theological Seminary. I called Green’s “tweaking” a blatant misrepresentation of the truth. Because of my article, Larry Siegle agreed that the two systems were not compatible. Hyperpreterism is an eschatology that fits into a synthetic view of justification (works righteousness/grace) and is not Reformed at all. Samuel realizes this, but he is honest about the fact that he does not want to embrace two opposing theologies, especially if he will have to eject the Reformed doctrine on soteriology. To embrace the two would require an individual to accept irrationalism as a basis of Christian faith, which in reality is no faith at all. I don’t know where Samuel is heading currently, but one thing seems certain, it will have to include a consistent eschatology that embraces the Reformed faith and not abort it (Reformed Theology) and still claim it is Reformed.
- Dr. Kenneth Talbot