Dr. Talbot's Advice Regarding Sam Frost

Two days ago, I published an explanation of why I do not recommend Sam Frost. I did this because I frequently get asked about Sam. People are curious about what's going on with him, whether Sam's anti-hyper-preterist material is reliable, and why we no longer collaborate. This curiosity is understandable, given our past and especially since Sam still mentions me by name in interviews.

My article focused on two main topics: inconsistencies and behavior. As expected, Sam responded. Below is his entire response, along with my counterpoints.

Yes, there is some "personal" stuff involved, and I realize that may not interest most of you. However, for some, this will be helpful because they have had similar run-ins. You’re not crazy.

In summary, Sam fabricates claims about my beliefs, selectively omits key details to construct a particular narrative, and falsely portrays his past pastor and friend. Multiple individuals on Facebook have called him out for consistently sharing sloppy posts (I provide screenshots). Additionally, his shift in stance towards hyper-preterist Michael Sullivan’s charts, which I have debunked, highlights a significant lapse in his logical reasoning. Coupled with his boastful biography, this raises concerns about a potential evasion of accountability.

I extensively conversed about many of these issues with Dr. Talbot prior to his passing, and he himself issued a warning on Facebook. Take this as a continuation of that warning.

---

Usually I promote Jason Bradfield’s Contra Reformed articles.  Recommend them, too.  However, recently, Bradfield, a former close acquaintance of mine years ago, sunk to low swamp waters.  Jason, you see, is an “orthodox preterist.”  This is a term used for those who have most of the NT “fulfilled” in 70 CE.  However, they snip off a few passages of Scriptures here and there that are reserved for “the end” of history.  This keeps this just above creedal waters so that they can have their WCF cake and eat it, too.  Been there, done that.

1. Sam manipulates the situation to make it seem like we were on good terms, and then, suddenly, I unexpectedly "sank to low swamp waters" by criticizing him. This is a typical false narrative I've come to expect from Sam.

What Sam fails to mention is that last July, he became upset with me for deleting some of his comments on a Facebook post because I sensed he was trying to start another argument with his former pastor and me. This is the same former pastor that Sam abandoned as an ordained elder, calling him a "dweeb" and a theological novice for challenging Sam during an earlier Facebook dispute over "spiritual death." Here's what I wrote:

“Yeah, that's my response when I sense that someone is only interested in arguing and unwilling to listen. Despite both ***** and I clarifying that the importance of grammar wasn't a point of contention, you continued with your usual style of rapid-fire responses without actually listening. I don't have time for that, and I'm particularly tired of it coming from you. Sam, it seems like you've become a social media attention whore. How else am I supposed to interpret it when people point out that you're misrepresenting their arguments, and you persistently carry on? And then you go to your own page to assure ***** that his comments there are safe, as if that's going to impress him after what you've done to the church and what you've said about him. By the way, that whole incident was another attention-seeking move on social media. You cared more about your Facebook followers than your own church. Considering where you and ***** currently stand, can I really believe that you care about his comments being safe on your page? Or is this just about you and appearances? Who was that comment really for? Was it for *****, or were you throwing out some red meat for many of the boneheads who frequent your page that are just starving to attack others?”

And Sam responded, “You have me all wrong, and have my heart all wrong. I think it best that we sever our ties right now. I am shocked, but I’ll get over it.”

But do I have Sam all wrong? In the previous altercation, which arose from similar circumstances [Sam initiating conflicts on Facebook], Sam said this to me: “Now brother, you know me like a book…and you know that I am a gonzo kind of off the cuff writer on FB that shoots off a thought to see the reaction….ALWAYS have done that…”

No, I believe I understood Sam well. However, he blocked me shortly after that final message, and we haven't communicated since.

Sam wants to portray himself as loving, tolerant, forgiving, and seeking reconciliation. It's all untrue. He terminated our friendship and blocked me because I refused to tolerate his attention-seeking, provocative Facebook battles. And yet, somehow, I'm the one who's been vilified for cautioning others about who they're dealing with.

2. What exactly does "most" refer to? What percentage is being implied? And which specific passages am I supposedly snipping off? It's worth noting that Sam doesn't directly quote me anywhere. And the reason he doesn't is because he's fabricating details, as we'll soon discover.

Jason’s recent hit piece is “Why I Don’t Recommend Sam Frost.”  Now, remember, just recently, I recommended Jason Bradfield; his article on Ward Fenley.  I have recommended Jason in the past, too, letting our differences go by the wayside.  However, Jason lacks the maturity to do the same.  In fact, I endorse several books against Hyper Preterism.  Stephen Whitsett, who is a Premillennialist, I recommend.  I recommend Ken Gentry’s books, too.  I can recommend Lance Conley, an Eastern Orthodox Christian.  I can recommend all sorts of brothers.  Jason, however, can’t.  You tow his line, or you get off the boat.  For me, this kind of attitude (one that you find way too often among the “Reformed” crowd) is simply unbiblical and entirely outside the Christian spirit.

1. Observe what Sam does here. ‘Look at my actions. Look at how loving and tolerant I am. I'm willing to overlook our differences. But Jason lacks the maturity I have to do the same.’ What Sam conveniently omits is that he terminated our friendship and blocked me.

Moreover, committing significant wrongs against people and expecting them to simply overlook it without acknowledging your wrongdoing is certainly not a display of maturity. It's cowardice. This is why he couldn't reconcile with his former pastor and fellow elder. This is why he couldn't reconcile with Dr. Talbot, who wanted nothing to do with him in the last year or so of his life. And this is why it didn't work with me either.

2. It's true that there are certain books I wouldn't recommend. (I don’t put Dr. Gentry in that category) Sometimes, there might be books that I would typically endorse if it weren't for the author's questionable lifestyle or heretical views expressed elsewhere. So, I suppose Sam has a point there. I'm guilty of being selective about what I recommend to others. Coming to terms with the fact that I propagated heresy for seven years and negatively impacted people's lives tends to make one more cautious.

In contrast, Sam treats it as if it were a game. Just take a look at his lengthy 10-page biography that accompanies every blog post he writes. The majority of it consists of him boasting about his achievements while promoting a false gospel and leading people astray. This isn’t the entire thing, by the way: [emphasis mine]

Samuel’s studies lead him into an issue in the field of Eschatology where his scholarship and unique approach in Hermeneutics garnered him recognition.  Because of the controversial nature of some of his conclusions, scholars were sharp in their disagreement with him.  Frost’s initial work, Misplaced Hope: The Origins of First and Second Century Eschatology (2002, Second Edition, 2006 Bi-Millennial Publishing), sold over four thousand units.  While arguing for the Reformation understanding of sola Scriptura as defined by the Westminster Confession of Faith, Frost’s book launched a heavily footnoted argument for a total reassessment of the doctrine known as the Second Coming of Christ.  The conclusion was that the events of the war of the Jewish nation against their Roman overlords in 66-70 C.E. formed the New Testament authors’ eschatological outlook, and went no further than their own first century generation; a view otherwise known as “full” or "hyper" Preterism.  Internationally recognized Evangelical author and speaker, Steve Wohlberg remarked, ‘On the “preterist” side today…we have such influential leaders as Gary DeMar, Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., David Chilton, R.C. Sproul, Max King, James Stuart Russell, Samuel M. Frost, and John Noe.  To these scholars…the beast is not on the horizon, he’s dead” (Italics, his)” (End Time Delusions, Destiny Image Publishers, 2004, page 133).  It should be noted that only Noe, King and Frost supported the “full” Preterist position. Thomas Ice and co-author of the best selling Left Behind series, Tim LaHaye, quote Frost’s work, Misplaced Hope, as well in their book, The End Times Controversy: The Second Coming under Attack (Harvest House Publishers, 2003, page 40).  Dr. Jay E. Adams, who single handedly launched “a revolution” in Christian Counseling with his work, Competent to Counsel: An Introduction to Nouthetic Counseling, (1970, Zondervan), also wrote an analysis of Frost’s work in Preterism: Orthodox or Unorthodox? (Ministry Monographs for Modern Times, INS Publishing, 2004).  Adams wrote of Misplaced Hope as a "useful, scholarly work" (p.6 - though he disagreed with the overall thesis).  Dr. Charles E. Hill, Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at Reformed Theological Seminary, Orlando, wrote of Misplaced Hope that Frost, “attacks the problem of the early church in a much more thoroughgoing way than I have seen” (When Shall These Things Be? A Reformed Response to Hyper Preterism, Ed. Keith Mathison, Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, 2003, ‘Eschatology in the Wake of Jerusalem’s Fall’ p. 110-ff.).  There were several other works as well that took the scholarship of Frost seriously, like Ergun Caner in The Return of Christ: A Premillennial Perspective, Eds., Steve W. Lemke and David L. Allen (B&H Publishing, 2011). Because of the controversial nature of Frost’s conclusions on these matters, it was difficult to find a denomination within the Church-at-Large to work in terms of pastoral ministry.  That situation changed when Samuel was called by a Bible study group in Saint Petersburg, Florida to found a congregation.  Christ Covenant Church was established in 2002 operating under the principles outlined by Presbyterian historian James Bannerman’s work, The Church of Christ: A Treatise on the Nature, Powers, Ordinances, Discipline, and Government of the Christian Church (Banner of Truth Trust, 1974, original, 1869).  By-Laws and a Constitution were drawn up in the strictest manner for what was considered an “Independent” establishment of a Presbyterian Church, granted that a “call” was received and recognized by Presiding Elders duly ordained from existing and recognized denominations.  Two Elders, one ordained in the Reformed Presbyterian Church (Mike Delores), and another ordained in the Presbyterian Church of America (Dr. Kelly N. Birks, now deceased) tested and reviewed the call, ordaining Samuel on October 20th, 2002, the Twenty Second Sunday after Trinity.  Proper forms were submitted to Tallahassee, Florida with the stamp of a Notary Public Witness.  Christ Covenant Church (CCC) functioned as a local church for five years with a congregation as large as 30 members.  Frost was gaining recognition after Misplaced Hope had been published in January of that year, and conferences were hosted that included debates with another prominent "full" Preterist educator, Don K. Preston.  CCC hosted best-selling authors, Thomas Ice, and Mark Hitchcock from Dallas Theological Seminary; and Dr. James B. Jordan (Westminster Theological Seminary), well-known author/pastor in Reformed theological circles.  Frost was invited for the next several years to speak at over 25 conferences nation-wide, was featured in articles and an appearance on local news in Tampa for one of CCC’s conferences.  The Evangelical Theological Society also invited Samuel to speak at the Philadelphia conference (Frost is currently a Member of ETS as well as Society of Biblical Literature). During this time Samuel had submitted one more book, Exegetical Essays on the Resurrection of the Dead (TruthVoice, 2008; repr. JaDon Publishing, 2010); and co-wrote, House Divided: A Reformed Response to When Shall These Things Be? (Vision International, 2010).  Frost also wrote several Forewords for up and coming authors who were influenced by his teaching materials, as well as cited many times in books, lectures and academic papers.  However, because of certain aspects of Hermeneutics and Frost’s undaunted commitment to scholarship (with always a strong emphasis on the personal nature of devotional living to Christ), several challenges to the "hyper" Preterist view he espoused finally gave way, largely due to the unwavering commitment to Samuel by the Dean of Whitefield Theological Seminary, Dr. Kenneth G. Talbot, who continually challenged him.  In what shocked the "hyper" Preterist world, Samuel announced after the Summer of 2010 that he was in serious error, and departed the movement as a whole, along with Jason Bradfield, now Assistant Pastor of Christ Presbyterian Church, Lakeland, Florida .  Christ Covenant Church had dissolved after 2007 while Samuel continued as a public speaker and writer, largely due to reasons that would unravel Frost’s commitment to "hyper" Preterism as a whole.

Dr. Talbot hated Sam boasting about his "accomplishments" as a heretical teacher.

This is misleading: “In what shocked the ‘hyper’ Preterist world, Samuel announced after the Summer of 2010 that he was in serious error, and departed the movement as a whole, along with Jason Bradfield, now Assistant Pastor of Christ Presbyterian Church, Lakeland, Florida.”

He technically abandoned hyper-preterism "after the Summer of 2010," but it was more around April/May 2011. I remember this distinctly because I had quit my over-the-road trucking job during Thanksgiving week, posted a rap video about limited atonement, only to face opposition from hyper-preterists, and officially renounced hyper-preterism in December of 2010. I gave up on attempting to reconcile Reformed theology with hyper-preterism while Sam continued to explore a possible consummation while living in the “age to come.” (See Gary DeMar and Kim Burgess) I'm not sure why he's mentioning the "Summer of 2010," unless he's implying he played a role in my departure ("along with..."), which he didn't.

And this is false: “Christ Covenant Church had dissolved after 2007 while Samuel continued as a public speaker and writer, largely due to reasons that would unravel Frost’s commitment to ‘hyper’ Preterism as a whole.”

Our "church" (true churches preach the pure Gospel, administer the sacraments rightly, and practice discipline; we were not a church) disbanded because I decided to end it. We were meeting in my apartment, and I had initiated a series on James. However, after a few weeks, I decided to discontinue it because Michael Grace was the only consistent attendee apart from my immediate family. Sam's attendance was unpredictable due to personal reasons.

So, yes, I learned a valuable lesson from that experience. I prioritize sound doctrine and living. But where does God, in His Word, require me to endorse books? What are the guidelines? Am I obligated to endorse Sam simply because he recommended me? Who established that rule? Is this why Sam becomes upset—because I refuse to endorse his work or participate in another podcast with him?

There's more to discuss regarding this issue of boasting, but I'll return to it later.

See, Jason’s panties are in a wad because I don’t like Preterism.  I make it plain and clear.  I have watched many people “slide” from Preterism (excuse me, “orthodox” preterism) to hyper preterism.  I receive emails (just got another one from Austrailia) from pastors, elders, and family members watching their friends and family “reading David Chilton” then sliding into Don Preston.  Jason may not get these emails, but I do get them.  Regularly.  Being a former Hyper Preterist leader, pastor, and teacher has brought me to this little niche of helping others see the light.  Oh well.

Nope. I'm not concerned about Sam's stance other than to show the contradictions. I stopped taking him seriously a while back. The purpose of my article was to clarify to people why I don't endorse him.

Now, this has made enemies, of course. The Postmillennialists (some of them) can’t stand me. Why? Well, because I was a former Postmiller. Postmill requires hyper-partial-preterism (sorry….orthodox preterism). Bradfield writes, “As a former hyper-preterist (aka full-preterist), I have expressed concern with some of the commentary coming from some orthodox preterists. I believe that some of it needs to be refined, as some go too far on some texts.” See that word, “some”? It mentioned quite a bit here in this little snippet. “Some.” What does Jason mean here? “Some” orthodox preterists “go too far”? Who would these people be? Names, please. Now, Mr. Bradfield, these “some” who remained unnamed – who cares if the “go too far”? Can that “lead” to something else? Maybe, say, I don’t know….Hyper Preterism? And, why do these “some” go too far? Is there a reason go to far? Do they have a reason? Yes. They do. You’ll not hear this from Bradfield, though. We don’t want to upset the horses in the stall.

1. So, is the sole reason some postmillennialists can't tolerate Sam because he's a former postmillennialist? Or could it be due to the cheap shots on Facebook designed to provoke reactions?

2. Postmillennialism does NOT necessitate "hyper-partial-preterism." That claim is simply untrue. Those familiar with the various interpretations within postmillennialism recognize this.

3. Note how he equates "hyper-partial-preterism" with "orthodox preterism." Firstly, what exactly constitutes hyper-partial-preterism? Is it 90%? 95%? 98%? And if it's synonymous with "orthodox preterism," and "hyper-partial" inevitably leads to hyper-preterism, then why does Sam get to distinguish between "some" preterism leading to hyper-preterism and "some" preterism that doesn't?

Bradfield continues: “However, I have never made the broad-sweeping generalizations about orthodox preterism that Sam has made.” Bravo, Jason! So what? What’s wrong with “broad, sweeping generalizations”? I mean, you have already admitted that “some” go “to far.” To far into what? Hmmm? The rest of the article is basically Bradfield attacking my strategy of “broad” generalizations (most of those who know me get it; Jason does not get it).

Yes, I deliberately wrote "some" multiple times and even italicized them. I did so to emphasize the distinction between being specific and general. It's worth noting that Sam used to value this distinction as a Clarkian who studied logic. However, it seems that consideration is discarded when one is solely focused on eliciting reactions to boost traffic for one's Facebook profile.

He goes into my book, written in 2012 (and selling quite well, thank you brother Gentry, who I disagree with, but recommend), and some other snips, cuts and pastes.  Never forget, Jason is an “orthodox 70 Ader.”  70 AD.  Jesus and Jerusalem and Titus; Great Tribulation.  Last Days.  The Beast and Harlot.  All Jerusalem and done and fulfilled.  Jesus just hasn’t raised the dead, yet (well, spiritually he has; from spiritual death).  70 AD.  Spiritual.  You do the math.

1. Sam might want to verify with Dr. Gentry. The website indicates that the book is unavailable.

2. Once again, it's important to note that Sam doesn't provide any direct quotes of me saying these things. He can't because he's fabricating them. I do not adhere to the belief that the "last days" are fulfilled, nor have I ever commented on the beast and harlot. His mention of "70 AD. Spiritual." after the resurrection comment is baffling. Is he implying that I advocate for a spiritual resurrection in 70 AD? It's unclear. This kind of impromptu, erratic discourse is what you have to contend with. Additionally, it appears that Sam associates "orthodox preterism" (also known as hyper-partial-preterism) with the notion that, essentially, the only remaining event is for Jesus to "just" raise the dead. A. That doesn't even align with my position. B. It's not an accurate portrayal of "orthodox preterism." This is just sloppy work from Sam.

Again, Bradfield states, “Contrary to Sam’s false claim now, none of the orthodox preterists I know have simply said, “Well, we can’t go the full-preterist route because of the creeds, and we have zero Biblical basis for it.” Now, I never quoted any 70 ADer to this effect, and Jason provides none. I am not saying they say this (well, Chilton did). However, my argument is that they have no biblical basis for their claims in spite of their claims that they do. This is where I would sic Mike Sullivan on them with his charts which virtually show how putting all of these “orthodox preterists” together (excuse me…”some” of these orthodox preterist who “go to far” together) would, logically, at least bring one to consider or hear out a hyper preterist, like Sullivan. You can ignore Sullivan all you like, but he won’t go away. Castigate and ridicule him all you want – but look at the work and those charts. Look at them closely. Ponder them. He’s put a ton of work there. And, I have to really put a gigantic boot on my ego to say this, because I ridiculed Mike in the past. I didn’t want to see it. Ridicule (Jason’s method) is easier. Engaging is harder. I engage. Personally. It gets messy. Oh well.

1. Indeed, I'm well aware that Sam believes no preterist can justify their orthodoxy biblically. That's precisely why I mentioned the book and his misguided, overly broad criticisms of preterists on his Facebook page. He's essentially proving my point.

In his book, he acknowledged that he once made the same erroneous accusation against Dr. Gentry. He confessed his "failure" and admitted to falsely accusing Dr. Gentry "in [his] zeal." However, it was a zeal lacking in knowledge. Now, he's reverting back to making the same false accusation.

In his book, he defended preterists against hyper-preterists. Now, he doesn't. Yet, he expects people to purchase his book and take him seriously.

I'm not the only one who recognizes the inconsistency.

Do you notice any distinctions made here about what "some" preterists are capable of versus others? None at all. And that certainly aligns with his assertion that no preterist can justify their claims biblically. It's no wonder this sparked reactions from several individuals. Perhaps Sam would dismiss these individuals as “dweebs” or simply jealous as well? Notice the tactics Sam employs.

Alright, so Doug Wilson presents that argument. However, it's important to note that not all preterists share this perspective. Sam highlights a difference (“Doug Wilson"), but this conflicts with the initial post, which made no distinctions. Then we encounter the following:

Notice how Benjamin makes a clear distinction when he mentions "the right PP perspective." Now, observe Sam's response: "I haven’t seen it, yet." He's reverting back to lumping them all together. Additionally, his comment about the creeds is simplistic and naive. Firstly, we embrace the creeds because they align with Scripture. Secondly, does Sam genuinely believe that hyper-preterists will take him seriously by solely appealing to the Bible? His recent debate with Ward Fenley demonstrates otherwise. In that debate, they agreed not to reference any creeds. Did Sam emerge victorious? Just read the comments and chat. Many hyper-preterists believe Ward thoroughly refuted Sam. Some non-hyper-preterists were even disappointed with Sam.

Hyper-preterists will simply point out that Sam's interpretation of Scripture is flawed. And they do. It appears Sam hasn't fully grasped the reasons behind why hyper-preterists advocate their positions.

Benjamin gets it:

But there's more. Here is Gregorian expressing confusion over Sam's careless, overly generalized post:

And another:

And another:

Now, why would Mike Bull feel compelled to state, "Not this pret," if Sam was being explicit about making distinctions between preterists? Perhaps Mike is also considered a "dweeb."

And another:

Do you notice a pattern in the responses? People are consistently feeling the need to differentiate between preterists. Why would they do this if Sam had been so unequivocal about it?

And another one:

And another:

Are all these individuals simply slow? Surely, there couldn't be an issue with Sam's communication. Let's examine another of Sam's trivial, generic posts.

See that? "James Barcelona, a Hyper Pret, pretty much speaks for all Preterists…." when discussing how the "church" was distinctive to the first generation and them alone. So, Sam makes distinctions among orthodox preterists, does he?

Now, I won't even comment on this. I'll leave it to others to highlight the sloppiness:

That is Sam’s laugh emoji, by the way.

Gee, I am really starting to see a pattern here.

The following is quite revealing. Notice how Sam evades basic questions. His supposed "proof" that he's making sense is that a few people "like" his post and "contact [him] almost daily." This pattern is all too familiar; it mirrors what we saw with the "spiritual death" tirade. I've been told that I don't comprehend him because I don't engage in phone conversations with him to seek clarity. It sounds like some sort of bizarre gnostic club he's operating, where you must dial a number to access secret knowledge in order to decipher his absurd posts.

This is Sam's way of avoiding accountability: he attributes your pretend failure to comprehend him to the notion that you're aware he's correct and have no counterargument.

2. The defense of hyper-preterist Michael Sullivan and his charts is particularly revealing in this context.

For those unfamiliar, Michael Sullivan is a hyper-preterist who asserts his adherence to Reformed theology. He contends that hyper-preterism can be substantiated as Reformed and Orthodox by citing from various Reformed authors and theologians who interpret certain passages in a preterist (past fulfillment) manner. He creates extensive charts where he lists verse references alongside the names of Reformed individuals or groups who interpret those passages as having been fulfilled in the past.

Here's an example:

Ironically, both Gary DeMar and Sam Frost now take these charts seriously. Gary, whose name has appeared on some of these charts, has capitulated. Sam, on the other hand, has not. He used to view these charts as trivial and devoid of substance, a sentiment I share.

Sam now insists that I should regard these charts seriously because of the "ton of work" Mike has invested in them, as if copying and pasting text into Excel is an arduous task. Apparently, Sam sees this as sufficient proof now.

Hadrien has this to say about Mike's frivolous charts:

Sam, who often finds himself needing to backtrack, responds with this:

See that? Now he's attempting to make distinctions again. "SOME" partial preterists go too far.

But here's what Sam fails to disclose. Look at Sullivan's chart again. Sullivan has to incorporate NON-PARTIAL-PRETERISM to establish his major premise and subsequent connections!

1. Sam wants you to believe that these charts prove full-preterism solely via "some" partial-preterists. They don't. The charts are COMBINING partial-preterism with non-partial-preterism. So where are Sam's cheap, generic criticisms of classic amillennialists? Why isn't Sam arguing that classic amillennialism "leads" to hyper-preterism? According to these frivolous charts, classic amillennialism is necessary! And apparently, Sam fails to grasp that his own commentary could be used against him. In a recent Q&A video with Nortier, Sam argued that the coming of the Son of Man mentioned in Matthew 10:23 has been fulfilled in the ascension!

Let's channel Michael Sullivan: John MacArthur's Study Bible refers to Matthew 10:23 as "Christ's second coming." Sam Frost asserts that Matthew 10:23 is fulfilled. Therefore, according to John MacArthur and Sam Frost, Christ's second coming, as described in Matthew 10:23, is fulfilled.

Check.

Listen, if you profess to be a "scholar" and take this stuff seriously, do us all a favor and retire. See if Ace Hardware will hire you full-time.

2. Because the argument depends on classic amillennialism, Sullivan is committing a fallacy of equivocation. The argument equivocates between the spiritual fulfillment in AD 70 and the future physical event described by classic amillennialism. For a syllogism to be valid, the terms must maintain a consistent meaning throughout the argument. Equivocation introduces ambiguity by altering the meaning of a term midway through the argument. And this ambiguity prevents clear logical connections between the premises and the conclusion.

Let me provide you with a classic example of equivocation. You should easily identify the issue:

Major Premise: A feather is light.

Minor Premise: What is light cannot be dark.

Conclusion: Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.

"Light" is defined in two different ways, disrupting the logical connection from premise to conclusion. Sam and Sullivan fail to grasp basic logic.

I brought this to light years ago, and I thought Sam comprehended it, but evidently, Sam either missed the memo or chose not to disclose that part. Instead, he wants you to believe that my "ridicule" of Sullivan's charts was unfounded.

He stated in his book that "Full preterists play a shell game with commentaries and, mainly, with Preterist authors." Now, he believes they're on to something.

In his book, he asserted that you couldn't be Reformed and a Hyper-Preterist. Now, he refers to Sullivan as "Reformed." (YouTube Video from April) Notice how he completely sidestepped that point from my article, opting instead to raise nonsensical, fallacious charts and attempt to portray me as equally illogical and unwilling to "see it" as he once was. He didn't address this years ago. I did.

Talk about projection.

Given Sam's absurd bragging about his accomplishments as a heretic and his defense of Mike's ridiculous charts and claim to be Reformed, it seems like he's trying to dodge responsibility for his terrible mistake of hyper-preterism. After all, who would take someone seriously as a scholar when they argued that we're living in the new heavens and earth, Jesus has already returned, the dead have been raised, and we're glorified? Pretty much no one, except some Church of Christ restorationists and a couple of pretend “Reformed” guys.

“THEY led me to this! I’m no ignoramus; I’m a serious scholar. I was only taking them to their logical conclusion.”

Roderick Edwards testifies that he became a hyper-preterist by reading John Owen’s “The Death of Death in the Death of Christ.” Maybe we should ditch particular atonement too! Or, maybe we should question Roderick’s reasoning skills and reading comprehension.

Listen, I've admitted to people that I was foolish, ignorant, and too proud to listen to others. My intentions were good, but I was an idiot nonetheless. And I shudder to think about the impact I've had on other people's lives. There is absolutely nothing there to brag about. Sam, on the other hand, is so fixated on being seen as a scholar that he now shifts the blame to orthodox preterists, rehashes old false accusations that he once apologized for, and now defends Mike Sullivan's charts as examples of fine scholarly work.

Folks, you better pay close attention to what’s going here.

Anyhow, since I am feeling up to it; here are some more lie from Jason: “In his book, he claims that “Adam was cursed and estranged by breaking the command.” Now, he denies that Adam was cursed. Um, no, Jason. Adam was “estranged” and removed from the Garden, and died, working the cursed ground. He suffered the curse of death (as will Jason and I). But, the serpent is directly cursed. Adam and Eve are not directly cursed. There is no text that says they were.

Sam completely missed the point here, as he will two more times. I understand his current stance; he doesn't need to explain it to me. The issue is that his CURRENT position contradicts statements made in his 2010 book. The problem isn't solely that he changed his mind (although some of those changes are incorrect); it's that he presents one stance on social media while advocating a different one in a book he still recommends to others without clarification.

When Gary DeMar did this, we raised concerns. Gary would make statements on Facebook, such as denying the idea that God can raise dead bodies after they've returned to dust. When questioned, he would redirect people to his books. However, upon reading his books, one would find him affirming the physical, bodily resurrection of the dead. So... which is it? It turns out, Gary has been caught editing some of his older books to rectify this issue. At least he's taking steps to address it. Sam, on the other hand, simply directs people to read “my book, of course," expecting them to do so uncritically. Even Lance Conley mentioned to me on Facebook yesterday that it would be beneficial if Sam revised his book in light of his current positions.

No lie detected.

Lie two: In his book, he claims that Christians “have been ‘made alive’ with Christ already through the empowering outpoured Spirit” and that John 5.24-29 teaches “two stages of resurrection of the dead.” Now, he calls you a dualist and a gnostic for saying such things.” Jason’s reading is a bit unhinged here. Two stages of ONE resurrection, not TWO resurrections. Understand, Jason? The first STAGE (for lack of a better term) is being infilled with the Spirit in my mortal body, which is still under going death (me). The Spirit who raised Jesus from the literal dead, will also raise me, literally from the dead, too. The first stage of this SINGULAR resurrection which will be in the last day is just that. It is not a “Spiritual Resurrection.” There is just one resurrection.

Once more, I'm aware of his current position. However, the crux of the matter remains: he refutes what he asserted in 2010 and presents both viewpoints without qualification. In his debate with Ward Fenley, Sam was asked if he had been "made alive" and "transferred into the kingdom of his dear Son." Sam responded "No" to both queries. Yet, in his book, Sam contends that we have “already” been "made alive."

No lie detected.

Lie three: “In his book, he argues that full-preterists “rule out physical death arbitrarily…” and that “estrangement”/“separation” from God is a “form” of “death.” Now, he blames Reformed theologians for teaching this and providing full-preterists the ammo.” Well, they do. Again, note my terms. Death “entered” (singular death) in Adam, and, as an entity (or “power” as Paul calls it) it takes on, operates, works, brings about (all biblical terms) effects on human beings. Separation from God, “alienation” is not Death itself (and it is never called that in the Bible). However, Death certainly brings about alienation. Jesus, right at the moment of his death, screams, “why have you forsaken me!” precisely because Death (the separation of body and soul) is accursed. “Cursed is any man who hangs on a tree.” Jesus took upon himself our estrangement by giving up his life to Death, not “spiritual death,” but actual, nailed on the cross, blood dripping death of body. Jason just doesn’t get it here, or that there is even something to be said here. I am not alone in my thinking here, either.

This is quite amusing. Sam accuses me of lying once more and then responds with: "Well, they do." In other words:

No lie detected.

Now, let’s get to the real reason Jason’s all keyed up: “If I genuinely thought that embracing preterism would inevitably lead to heretical full-preterism, I certainly wouldn’t endorse a book that supports preterism. If I genuinely believed that all variants of preterism were a “gateway drug” that inevitably led to the crack cocaine of heretical full-preterism, I wouldn’t be nodding my head in agreement with Jeremiah Nortier that Kenneth Gentry offers a “healthy” preterism.” And there you have it. Sam “gets around” and is a friend to these brothers. He (and they) get along with Sam, and Sam gets along with them. Jason just can’t handle this. He does not know how to have sharp disagreements and yet remain cordial, civil, and brotherly. He just cannot understand how Sam can get on all these podcasts, be invited to speak at Reformed Baptists conferences, and have a book published by Kenneth Gentry, or be friends and brothers with Jeremiah Nortier.

1. Ad Hominem: Sam attacks my character and my ability to handle disagreements instead of addressing the point made about his support for a view that he argues leads people to heresy.

2. Red Herring: Sam introduces entirely irrelevant information to divert attention from the main point. I didn't mention anything about relationships or getting along, so this diversion is completely irrelevant.

3. False Dilemma: Sam implies a binary choice between maintaining relationships and agreeing with my theological concerns.

It's ironic how Sam claims I don't know him because we don't communicate anymore, yet he acts as if he knows me perfectly well. I have amicable relationships with many individuals with whom I have sharp disagreements. In fact, a liberal PCUSA pastor even bought me a cigar a few months ago. However, I didn't rush to endorse his pro-LGBTQ views, and he certainly didn't endorse my website. Sam used to understand this dynamic. When Sam and I spent time together, he defended me against covenant creationist hyper-preterists whom I didn't allow on our social network. They viewed me as mean and intolerant because I refused to let them inundate my site with their evolutionary beliefs. Sam would tell them, ‘you don't know Jason. He's not how you portray him.’

Now, suddenly, I'm painted as having undergone a transformation. Supposedly, I'm no longer capable of being courteous, civil, and brotherly. But what evidence does Sam provide to support this claim? Absolutely none—except perhaps the fact that I called him out for being inconsistent and dishonest about his past.

He fabricates excuses to avoid addressing the issue once again. To be clear, the issue at hand is this: if Sam genuinely believes that preterism leads to heresy and that no preterist can justify their position biblically, then what exactly does he mean by "healthy preterism," and why would he endorse it? I didn't ask, "Why doesn’t Sam berate Dr. Gentry and treat him disrespectfully?" Sam refuses to answer the question because he's backed himself into a corner.

Now, of course, I have always stressed that “orthodox” Preterism “may,” “can,” “could,” lead to hyper preterism. You know, like Calvinism can lead to hyper Calvinism. Jason lies in saying that I believe that “all variants” lead to hyper preterism. I do? Does he have this in print? Jeremiah Nortier is not a Preterist. He’s Amill. Gentry, who even changed his view on the “end of the age,” sees the issue, too (we have talked on the phone about this – something Jason can’t and won’t do with me). I admire folks who change their minds. Stretch. Especially on eschatology. I am sorry if it bothers Jason that Doug Wilson’s comments on Revelation sound like hyper preterists, or that “some” of Durbin’s material is, well, what a hyper pret would say. Joel McDurmon is another one. Gary DeMar, who is no slouch, does the same thing. We (me and Jason) were on the same “list of signers” against DeMar. Wilson was on that list, as well as some others. There was a bit of conviction there on my part, simply because some of those brothers “go too far” in their “orthodox preterism.” One brother who was a signer even has a “Resurrection” of the dead martyrs in 70 AD, fulfilling Daniel 12:2! Now, Jason, if Daniel 12:2 is FULFILLED in 70 AD, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out the rest! Yet, these men are “orthodox” because, even though Daniel 12:2 is “fulfilled” in 70 AD…..they confess the creeds.

His analogy backfires. In fact, that was an analogy I employed against him two years ago. It doesn't support his position because he rejects preterism due to its potential to lead to hyper-preterism. As far as I know, he hasn't renounced Calvinism or expressed disdain for it. (Although, at this juncture, I genuinely question this.) So, apparently, one can adhere to Calvinism without guiding people toward Hyper-Calvinism.

“At the very least, Sam appears scattered and conveys a muddled message.” In Psychology we call this, “projection.” Jason then goes on to lie about me even more, “Then he got on Facebook and lied to his ‘followers’, claiming that the church had expelled him.” Now, if Jason wants me to replay this all over again, with the emails, and how this went down, I will. The “church” did not expel me (never said it did). The “pastor” did. A single man did. Never said the “church” did. They were shocked that I left. I was told to resign my eldership on a text message by this so called “pastor.” Why? Well, he never bothered to sit down with me, as he promised to do, to search these things out. I have the emails. But, see, Jason’s smear campaign has to bring this all back up, the “back story” as he calls it. Why does he do this? Well, because I hit postmillennialism. I get asked to be on podcasts. Jason, in one private exchange, called me “media whore.” Well, Jason, if you know me, you know that I have always lived in term of ecumenicism. I get along with folks I disagree with. Jesus commands me to do this; to live at peace with all men, as much as I can. Sorry this gets you worked up. That’s not my problem. It’s yours.

1. No lies here. All of this information is readily available on Facebook. Sam did indeed send an email to the pastor, informing him that he and his family were leaving the church. There was no instance of the church or the pastor kicking him out. I have personally seen the email, and I pressured Sam into posting it on Facebook, which he eventually did. He then attempted to rationalize his actions by stating, essentially, ‘What else could I have done? I was told to resign.’ However, what I would have expected from him was to take responsibility for his actions, confront his sin, and face the consequences instead of ignoring it, acting petulantly, and leaving the church.

2. Sam is making a fuss over nothing. When I referred to the "church" in this context, I meant the "pastor" because it is typically the pastor or elders who carry out disciplinary actions, not the congregants. Also, it's worth noting his admission here in case he has the courage to repost the email. I accused him of claiming that the "church" kicked him out, to which he responded that it was the "pastor." However, the pastor did not expel him. That assertion is false, as his email to the pastor substantiates.

3. He alleges that I am bringing up this issue because he criticized postmillennialism. This is untrue. Postmillennialism has no relevance to this matter. If Sam were to announce tomorrow, "I am a postmillennial preterist, and here's my 800-page book proving why," and if it were hailed as one of the most comprehensive eschatological works ever, I would still refrain from engaging with it or him. I refuse to endorse individuals who evade accountability for their sins, flee from church discipline, church-hop until they find a congregation that won't “push-back” (his word), and then disparage Reformed individuals who are more sound and righteous than he is simply because they choose to remain in a non-mainline denomination. Referring to these individuals as "snowflakes" in "safe spaces" is hardly conducive to peace, is it?

Jason then continues to make me out to be a liar and a sham (much like the Hyper Prets…and here is where the Hyper Prets and Jason, the “orthodox Pret” gets along together). Bradfield’s pathetic words continue: “For me, the distrust began when he “retreated” from his church, lied about his pastor, called him names, and sought a “safe space” in the wacky PC(USA) to teach without any push-back.” Jason just does not have a clue. He does not know my life. He does not interact with me at all. I think he’s jealous. But, that’s my opinion. Like his, it doesn’t matter much. Jason doesn’t “trust” me, and to that I say, “I don’t care.” I have the trust of a community here, a church, my fellow pastors, friends, family. They see my life day in and day out, and my work. They know me. Jason doesn’t.

1. I'm not sure why he views it as an issue that I would agree on this point with hyper-prets. Sam is defending Michael Sullivan.

2. It's true, I don't know his current life situation. However, that's irrelevant. The concern lies with his actions for which he has not shown remorse. I'm not impressed that some church in a liberal denomination accepted him under those circumstances.

Now, Jason wrote, “Oh, and there’s also the fact that when I confronted him about prioritizing his Facebook ‘fans’ over his own congregation in hopes of getting it addressed, he insisted that we part ways and blocked me. So there’s that.” This is the part where he called me a “media whore.” So, there’s that. Jason hates the fact that I get invited on podcasts. He just hates it. I wrote to Jason that he does not “know my heart,” and I suggested we part ways (at the counsel of my wife, because she saw that I was heartbroken over the loss of my friend and bother, Jason Bradfield). It was tearing me up.

1. Notice that he finally admits he did ask to part ways. He ended the friendship, not me. He did so because he couldn't handle the rebuke of a brother and the "wound of a friend."

2. Podcasts? Seriously? Anyone with a cheap webcam and/or microphone can do a podcast. Furthermore, his church drama was two and a half years ago, either in October or November of 2021. If you search YouTube for Samuel Frost and arrange the videos by date uploaded, you'll notice that the vast majority of them were posted AFTER he left the church. The podcasts had absolutely nothing to do with this.

However, like an idiot, I promoted Jason’s web page, Reformed Contra recently. I practice what I preach: try to live at peace; if your brother has a fault, go to him in private. Seek for peace. Reconcile. These things go against the grain in our flesh, but that’s when I know I am following the Spirit. And, I am still dumb enough to ask one more time, Jason: can’t we reconcile these things, and agree to disagree, and yet still get along for the cause of Christ and Crown?

1. We (Dr. T., his former pastor, and I) have heard this line before. Sam does not grasp Matthew 18. The private visit in Matthew 18 assumes a private offense. However, Sam's sins were not private; he broadcasted them all over Facebook for the entire world to see.

2. Sam lacks an understanding of reconciliation. Refusing to acknowledge sin and then expecting the offended parties to act as though it never happened is not reconciliation. Consider how Jesus restored Peter in John 21. Jesus addressed Peter's sin directly, particularly his self-aggrandizement over his brothers ("though they all fall away because of you, I will never fall away") and his three denials. Jesus tackled these issues by questioning Peter's love for Him compared to the others, and He asked three times. The sins were not brushed aside. And Peter demonstrated a transformed heart by no longer comparing himself to his brothers and showing humility.

Sam seems inclined to slap people in the face, deny it happened, and then, when confronted, ask if everyone can just move on and "agree to disagree," all while fabricating stories and deceiving people. And for what? Facebook followers?

I'm passing on what Dr. Talbot advised me: Stay away from this man.