Why I Don't Recommend Sam Frost

And what you should read instead

Sam Frost (2024)

“A Pret verses a Hyper Pret; Who would win? A Hyper Pret, hands down.”

“I haven't seen it, yet. Most of it ‘rides on the coat tails’ of the Creeds (which is fine with me). However, the HP will simply point out that ‘creeds’ err....” - Sam’s answer to whether the “right PP perspective could beat HPs fairly soundly.”

“The only barrier that you [partial preterists] have presented to me is the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Apostles’ Creed and I can blow through those pretty quick.” Interviewer: “So you would say you have not heard a strong biblical defense of the partial preterist position that keeps them from going all the way biblically.” Sam: “No, I have not. Other than, the church has spoken.”

“Oh, he’s Reformed. Yeah.” - regarding hyper-preterist Michael Sullivan

Sam Frost (2012)

“Preterism is enjoying a resurgence in biblical, conservative scholarship, there is no doubt about that. Full preterism, however, attempts to latch on to this, often making the case that preterism and full preterism go hand in hand—that full preterism is simply consistent preterism. As we will see, this is not the case.”

“Full preterists play a shell game with commentaries and, mainly, with Preterist authors. The strongest argument in full preterism is the references they make to the ‘time texts’ (as they call them). Here, they draw from preterists in noting that ‘they too’ argue that ‘at hand’ means ‘at hand.’ And, since there is no shortage of preterists, the full preterist will argue that he is being ‘inconsistent.’ That is, if the Preterist were logically consistent, he or she would be a full preterist. The reason often given is that they are afraid, or that they cling to the Creeds and Tradition. They couldn’t possibly have exegetical reasons!”

“I must admit my own failure to appreciate Gentry’s argument back at that time. I wrote, ‘We argue that the creeds on this point are not what the Bible teaches in light of the development of eschatology within her members, from all quarters. Gentry is as circular here as circular gets: the creeds are right because the Bible teaches what they say and the Bible is right in all that it says. He begs the question that the creeds are what the Bible teaches without proving it, which is the thing in need of demonstration. However, let it be clearly understood that the logical deduction from his statement gives us this truth: the authority of the creeds, or any biblical teaching, is not drawn from creeds, but from the Bible inasmuch as the teaching lines up with the word of God. The question is, then, always, does this line up with the word of God? Do we have authority to ask such questions of any and all extra-biblical material?” In my zeal I wrote ‘without proving it.’ But, anyone familiar with Gentry’s work knows that he has provided plenty of exegesis for his position. And, of course, I too was making it sound as if Gentry denies any consideration of full preterism whatsoever based solely on the creeds. Why bother with any exegesis if, in fact, the creeds have spoken? Yet, we have seen Gentry and others offer reams of exegetical material.”

“However, as I have shown in this book, the costs for becoming a full preterist are far greater than I first imagined. Anthropology, Christology, Ecclesiology, Soteriology, and Eschatology are all affected in major ways—overahauled even- so that by the time these things were worked out, I realized I was no longer even remotely operating within a classical Christian setting, much less a Reformed one! I had to redefine several foundational aspects within these subjects in order for full preterism to remain afloat. It was, for me, a question of how much. I had given up the resurrection of the body, the end of history, and a final judgment. I had removed progressive sanctification. I spiritualized the fulfillment so that God’s creation never comes into the fullness of redemption (reinterpreting passages like Romans 8:18 ff.). I was on the verge of leaving the idea of ‘organized church’, settling for ‘Bible studies’ instead. I flirted with Universalism, Open Theism, and Process Theology. I rejected the continuing enfleshment of Jesus Christ ‘in heaven.’ How far was I going to continue to compromise the Christian encyclopedia and yet still call myself a Reformed Christian?”

Me (2024)

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. However, I have never made the broad-sweeping generalizations about orthodox preterism that Sam has made. I haven't for one simple reason: orthodox preterists have provided “exegetical reasons” for rejecting hyper-preterism, as Sam himself acknowledged in his book where those 2012 quotes come from. Contrary to Sam’s false claim now, none of the orthodox preterists I know have said or even implied, “Well, we can’t go the full-preterist route because of the creeds. That’s our only basis.”

Sam has reverted to the ignorant caricature of orthodox preterists by hyper-preterists that he claimed to have repented of in 2012.

Now, some of you might say, “Yeah, but that was 2012. That was 12 years ago. Obviously, Sam has changed his position on partial preterists.”

Well…let me share another recent quote from Sam. Just six days ago, someone asked him, "What resources would you recommend that critique full preterism?"

He replied, "My book, of course...."

He said "of course" as if it’s obvious his book would still be recommended, despite his recent criticisms of orthodox preterism on Facebook.

So which is it?

• Have orthodox preterists offered “reams of exegetical material” or not?

• Are full-preterists playing “a shell game with commentaries and, mainly, with Preterist authors”, or not?

• Can you still be “Reformed” and a full-preterist, or not?

• Is full-preterism simply consistent preterism, or not?

There are many other questions too, now that Sam is still recommending his book:

• In his book, he claims that “Adam was cursed and estranged by breaking the command.” Now, he denies that Adam was cursed.

• 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.

• 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.

In a recent video, Sam explained that dispensationalism and full-preterism are similar in their all-or-nothing approaches. As expected, in light of his recent jabs at orthodox preterists, he didn't follow up by explaining how orthodox preterism addresses this issue. However, he doesn't hesitate to make that point in his book:

“It was noted that full preterism and Dispensationalism share a lot in common. They are both ‘all or nothing’ approaches. They both have a ‘one time fulfillment’ in mind. Both of them define ‘last days’ exactly alike (a relatively short period of actual time). They both have ‘all at once, at one time’ fulfillment. Preterism, on the other hand, does not lump all prophecy together. Some things were fulfilled then, and some things were not. This has, more or less, been the historic discussion in Church theology.”

Again, you might argue that Sam has changed his position over the past 12 years. Fine. But that doesn't explain why he is still recommending his book.

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 are a "gateway drug" that inevitably lead 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.

At the very least, Sam appears scattered and conveys a muddled message.

But there’s more to it for me: approximately six weeks ago, Sam participated in a video alongside MethodMinistries and Redeemed Zoomer, in which he criticized post-millennialists in non-mainline denominations for what he saw as “retreating.” He also got a good laugh when Zoomer referred to Christians who had left these liberal mainline denominations as "snowflakes" seeking "safe spaces." Sam went on to share how he got involved in a mainline church, and Zoomer praised him as exemplifying the “Reconquista” mentality.

Sam didn’t tell the audience what took place right before he joined the PC(USA) and began his “Reconquista” journey:

Around two years ago, he sparked controversy on Facebook by questioning the concept of "spiritual death." This occurred when he had recently become an elder in a church that transitioned to a confessional stance (WCF) and sought affiliation with a reformed Presbyterian denomination, like the OPC or RPCGA. When his pastor and fellow elder gently urged him to refrain from pursuing the issue due to potential confusion, Sam doubled down and then eventually left the church. Then he got on Facebook and lied to his ‘followers’, claiming that the church had expelled him.

None of that was mentioned in the “Reconquista” video. However, if you know the backstory, there was a subtle hint to it. He mentioned that one reason for choosing the PC(USA) was the freedom to teach according to his conscience without encountering push-back.

uh-huh.

A number of you have inquired about why I no longer collaborate with and/or promote Sam in opposing the hyper-preterists, particularly given our close friendship as hyper-prets and former hyper-prets, spanning nearly two decades. Well, if it hasn't become apparent from what I've outlined above...

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. Now, portraying himself as a Knight Templar is simply laughable. Additionally, his constant, vague criticisms of orthodox preterists and blaming them (and Reformed theology in general) for full-preterism while simultaneously promoting a book that exonerates them, with a foreword by an orthodox preterist, is just...well...ridiculous.

I don’t trust him. Plain and simple. 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.

I wasn’t given a choice in the matter, and neither was his pastor or congregation. However, you likely still have the option, and my recommendation is to steer clear.

Looking for good, dependable resources against hyper-preterism?

Fourteen years ago, I made this statement, and I stand by it today: hyper-preterists form their often absurd conclusions about the "last things" due to a misunderstanding/ignorance of essential, foundational Christian doctrine. Recently, I was pleased to encounter this sentiment in Joel Beeke's Systematic Theology:

To understand the last things, we must begin with the “first things.” Eschatology is like a suspension bridge between two mountains: the first creation and the new creation. History is the deck of the bridge, and the work of Christ is its piers and towers. The bridge is secured on one end by its abutment to God’s first work of creation.¹

Sam's claim that hyper-preterists such as Michael Sullivan can be classified as "reformed" is fundamentally ludicrous. Additionally, I've noticed that numerous former hyper-preterists still struggle to grasp these fundamental aspects of theology. If you fail to grasp the foundational aspects of theology, namely the "first" and even "middle" doctrines, you'll find yourself embracing various wild theories concerning the "last things" and jumping from one idea to another.

Don't automatically assume that the writings of a former hyper-preterist will offer you the most reliable guidance. In fact, most of them don’t. Rather, engage with a confessionally Reformed systematic theology, and start from page one.

1. Beeke, Joel R., and Paul M. Smalley. 2024. Reformed Systematic Theology: Church and Last Things. Vol. 4. Reformed Systematic Theology. Wheaton, IL: Crossway.