Mellō Yellow : On “Irrelevance,” Engagement, and the Sam Frost Gambit

Jun 19, 2025

In a recent podcast with Eric, Gary DeMar attempted a rhetorical two-step with the figure of Sam Frost.1 DeMar himself brought up Frost—a former full preterist-turned-critic—presumably to leverage Sam’s example or arguments in some way. Yet almost in the next breath, Gary dismissed him as “irrelevant” and unworthy of serious attention. The inconsistency is glaring: if Sam is truly so irrelevant, why bring him into the discussion at all? The answer is transparent—Gary wanted to use Sam as a prop to support whatever point suited his narrative, only to discard him once his presence became inconvenient.

This tactic isn’t limited to podcasts. In his article “Frost Advisory,” Gary spills considerable ink recounting Sam’s theological journey and current critiques, only to end with an ad hominem dismissal. He questions Sam’s credibility and stability, writing, “I will say what he and his followers will not like. Sam Frost cannot be trusted. We don’t know what Sam will believe tomorrow.” He mocks Sam’s “dramatic change” in views and essentially warns readers not to “hitch your wagon” to him. In other words, after introducing Sam into the conversation, Gary turns around and tries to disqualify him as a meaningful voice. Granted, I have voiced my own criticisms of Sam at times, but you don’t see me dragging him into the spotlight just to score rhetorical points. I don’t treat him as a convenient prop to prop up my narrative one moment and then dismiss him the next. If I cite Sam’s views, it’s to engage them directly and fairly—not to weaponize his name while sidestepping the substance of his arguments.

This is a transparent and disingenuous maneuver. You cannot both invoke a figure’s relevance and claim he doesn’t matter. By referencing Frost at all, Gary tacitly admits that Sam’s journey or arguments are relevant—perhaps to frame his own shift to “consistent preterism” as more stable or to portray critics as unstable. But when Sam’s actual critiques start to bite, Gary retreats to calling him a non-factor. It is a classic bait-and-switch. Leveraging Frost’s name for rhetorical gain while dismissing his credibility when challenged is not engagement—it’s evasion. If Gary truly believed Sam Frost was irrelevant, he would not have mentioned him. Using that supposed irrelevance as a shield only exposes the fragility of Gary’s case.

A similar evasion shows up in how Gary responds to me. On the podcast, Gary pointed to the lack of comments or buzz surrounding my articles as evidence that I’m “irrelevant.” Because I don’t have a large online following or a crowd of commenters, the implication is that my critiques are not worth engaging. This line of argument is not only fallacious—it is hypocritical. Truth is not determined by popularity, and the strength of an argument has nothing to do with social media metrics. A comment count is no measure of credibility.

And if it were, the standard would backfire on Gary. By his logic, is American Vision “highly relevant”? A quick scroll through their Facebook feed suggests otherwise. The comment counts on their last twenty posts are: 3, 5, 1, 0, 11, 1, 1, 18, 5, 6, 7, 2, 9, 2, 1, 0, 0, 3, 1, 2—hardly a viral footprint for a platform that has existed for decades. The main American Vision website does not even allow reader comments. It used to. If sparse engagement renders me irrelevant, then consistency would label Gary’s ministry the same. That would be absurd—and so is his argument against me. Relevance should be measured by the strength of one’s argument, not by likes and shares.

The irony is that Gary’s own actions contradict his dismissive rhetoric. He claims my critiques are unworthy of attention, yet he’s spent multiple posts and podcast episodes responding to them. Earlier this year, in a post for American Vision, Gary acknowledged my critique directly—only to wave it off with condescension: “Who is Bradfield to judge anyone?” he sneered, calling both me and Sam Frost “minor players in theological circles.”2 But if I’m so minor and irrelevant, why devote time and energy rebutting me? Why bother responding on his birthday, as he pointed out, if I don’t matter? The answer is obvious: because the arguments I’ve raised pose a serious challenge. You do not spend your time publicly rebutting someone who poses no threat. Gary’s engagement betrays the fact that he takes these critiques seriously, even while publicly posturing that he does not.

So when Gary says, “Nobody’s listening to Jason,” it’s nothing more than an empty swipe—a deflection designed to poison the well rather than address the arguments. Are we really judging truth by comment sections now? The fact is, Gary is listening and is responding. That alone undermines his whole claim. Instead of dealing with the substance of the argument, he’s checking view counts. That says more about the insecurity of his position than the strength of mine. When the argument is weak, the tactic shifts from engagement to dismissal. But that shift doesn’t go unnoticed.

I would urge Gary to focus less on the size of someone’s audience and more on the merit of what is being said. If I’m truly irrelevant, stop mentioning me. Otherwise, face the facts: dismissing critics while spending hours refuting them is not just logically incoherent—it’s revealing.

In my next segment, I’ll address Gary’s evasive posture and his repeated attempts to cast himself as a reluctant participant rather than the one actively promoting heresy.