The Preterist Blog ~ 100% Hyperpreterist Free|we can haz rezurekshun?

There are times, unfortunately, when open, continuing, and unrepentant sin must be exposed. Regular readers of this blog, particularly SGP members who are now openly complicit in the sin of their “leaders,” will recall three prior posts in which the sinful behaviour, including outright lies and abuse, of Michael Bennett, Jason Bradfield, and Samuel Frost were exposed. For easy reference here are the three relevant links:

What the SGP Admins Say in Private

Three Blind Men: The Liars of SGP

An Exercise in Obfuscation: Jason Bradfield’s “Logic”

I will summarize the issues addressed against these three men in my post: Three Blind Men. In that post, I listed Samuel last, as he was the least culpable at that time. He is now listed first as the most culpable. He presumes to be a teacher and leader of these men and since all the appropriate issues had been brought to his attention both privately and publicly by multiple persons, the burden now lies primarily on his shoulders. Not only is he failing to responsibly lead Michael and Jason, but he is also leading the members of SGP off the cliff of deceit, spin, and mockery. That does not relieve them of their own responsibility, and the attitude exhibited over there has been immoral in its “hear no evil, see no evil” willing blindness. It would be bad enough if they simply remained silent. But no, following the example of the three blind men, they further the sin.

Samuel Frost

• Samuel lied about the intent of the “private” email to the SGP members in order to libel someone. Jason admitted that the email was never intended to be private, yet Samuel went so far as to claim that the person who shared the non-private email was “soul-less.”
• Samuel lied about a previous email conversation we had in which he went off completely half-baked and then cut off communications when I confronted him with yet another lie he told.
• Samuel lied to Jason Bradfield about the state of my conversations with a third party representing to Jason that I was getting nowhere with this third party when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.
• When caught in the lie Samuel told to Jason, Samuel lied once again with a completely false and unbelievable “excuse.”
• Samuel supported the spin and mockfest started by Jason Bradfield, libeling Phil Naessens in the process.
• Samuel is a prideful boaster and claims that no one will debate him, yet Phil Naessens challenged him to a debate which he first accepted and then backed out. Samuel conveniently leaves out the fact that I have in fact debated him, to which his only response was an email calling me a lesbian housewife.
• Samuel knows that Bennett’s email was wrong and that Bennett should have just apologized but rather than calling Bennett out, he continues the public farce.

Michael Bennett

• Michael sent out an email within hours of the first posting of my picture at any time on the Internet with a side by side presentation of me and the Whore of Babylon with the subject line stating that “Preterist Idealism” was found to be right (i.e. I was the re-fulfillment of the Whore of Babylon).
• Michael lied about threatening to post my “ugly picture” in the past when he knew that such was considered completely harassing by me, and said to Roderick that “as usual” I must be mixing him up with someone else. He didn’t count on me to still have the email. I did, and he did precisely what I said he did.
• When called upon to repent in private by another Christian, his response was “Rebuke - LOL!” as if that EVER is an appropriate response, even if one thinks they are right.

Jason Bradfield

• Jason actively participated in a cover-up and spin of Michael’s completely inappropriate activities which Jason admitted in private were not appropriate on Michael’s part.
• Jason lied in his representations to SGP members in stating that there was no commentary provided with the pictures and all that could be inferred was “two crazy ladies” next to each other.
• Jason attempted to claim that he didn’t even know what the picture was supposed to be despite Michael’s email subject line and the fact that the picture itself had a watermark indicating that it was a depiction from the Book of Revelation.
• Jason manipulated children to attempt to aid him in his spin.

The above is intended as a summary (primarily of my post, with some added detail from Roderick’s posts). The reader interested in the truth can follow the reference links given to see for themselves.

Now things would have been left alone with my last article. At that point, all was said that needed to be said. The wrongs were exposed, and the involved parties refused to repent. Over and done with. After that article, another incident happened which may or may not have been done by someone associated with SGP. If it wasn’t someone associated with SGP, it was someone trying really hard to make it seem like they were. Despite Jason’s pie-in-the-sky-hyper-skepticism, it is not some random atheist. Sadly for them, the atheists I deal with are better behaved. If it was not someone associated with SGP, the other alternative is one of the other factions within hyperpreterism that are opposed to SGP. I also doubt they are that motivated to make Samuel and his crew look bad since Samuel allegedly is friends with everyone.

Due to the very serious (and downright actionable libelous) nature of the incident, I asked David Green, a hyperpreterist who is a mutual friend of mine and Samuel’s, to bring the incident to Samuel’s attention as things were going way too far, and unlike last time (detailed in Episode 20 of the Preterist Podcast), I will not be treated that way again. During that conversation with Samuel, David (on his own) asked if Samuel would like to resolve the differences between myself and him/SGP and offered to ask me if I wanted to open up discussions. At this point I had absolutely no obligation to do so. I followed every step necessary in confronting a non-believer (as I do not consider hyperpreterists to be Christians - a point which will be important later on), and the power to reconcile was always in Samuel’s hands. He, Jason, and Micheal needed to openly and unequivocably repent of their wrongs. It was always quite simple, but his pride didn’t allow it.

Despite having no obligation, I agreed that I would speak to Samuel to let him know what was necessary to clear the air with me and the other aggrieved parties; with David Green acting as the go-between. This was agreed to by Samuel. I knew I was in for a typical Samuel set-up, but I felt that if he was going to say he wanted to reconcile, I would give him the benefit of the doubt. I would rather be wronged yet again then turn away a potentially sincere offer to reconcile. I let myself be dragged into his manipulations once again. Through David, I told Samuel the following:

Samuel, it is my understanding through Dave that you wish to reconcile on the recent email incident and subsequent events. When Dave told me that, I was a bit surprised in that the power to right the wrongs done was always in your power. It was you who broke off email communications with me. It was you who joined in on the unjust mockfest initiated by Jason. It was you that joined in on the public face of support when you in fact do not think what Michael did was right. So what are the things that are at issue? As far as I am concerned it is the issues outlined in my last post on the issue, Three Blind Men.

I really do not believe until I see it that you wish to reconcile precisely because it was always in your power, without my input, or Dave’s involvement, to do so. However, as a Christian, I cannot turn my back on request for reconciliation on this particular event and the subsequent fall-out. Now what I am going to say next may offend you, but I also must speak my convictions. In determining what would necessary for reconciliation, I do not hold you to the same standards as a brother because you well know my position that hyperpreterists are not Christians. Therefore, I only have the right to come to you as I would to any non-Christian.

So you want to reconcile the wrongs done? Then Michael needs to post publicly, specifically, in detail, and without equivocation a true display of repentance. Jason needs to do the same concerning his unjust demonization of a legitimate complaint and the false public façade of support for Michael when he didn’t think it was right either. Lastly you need to do the same. You supported Michael, then Jason, and then continued in a public mockfest of a legitimate complaint. You have been untruthful about our recent email conversation, and you were untruthful to Jason about the state of the talks between [Mr. Jones] and I. You need to repent. If Jason and Michael refuse, then you need to publicly rebuke their actions and their refusal to repent and take appropriate action. What might that action be? They be removed from the community until they do repent (or if that is not possible, you remove yourself from their community).

I do not wish to hear from you, “oh but you said I said I was teaching at [name omitted] but didn’t have links to back it up.” I discussed that thoroughly with you in email and offered an apology if I read more into your words than were intended. You refused to even acknowledge that apology (another sin) and continued in a hostile manner, and then cutting off communication. I already publicly posted that email since you chose to misrepresent that exchange as to “no avail” due to me which is patently and absolutely false.

Now I have to tell you that I sought counsel on this, and my voice was one of most leniency even though I think you will reject what I said above because, again, that was always in your power. The other counsel I received was that even though I don’t consider you three to be my Christian brothers, you three believe you are Christians, and thus should be upheld to biblical standards for ongoing and unrepentant sin. So if you wish to know the conditions if I were to treat you as an offending brother in this matter, it would be as follows. I am copying and pasting the counsel I was given so I don’t re-word it and have it lose its power. I would put those words in italics.

These folks want to be considered Christians and for the sake of argument lets say that they are. Ok. Fine. 1 Corinthians 5:7-13 instructs us how to deal with Christians that are in open and unrepentant sin. Verse 13 tells us to put this person(s) away. If they want to be considered Christians then this is what needs to be done.

Mike and Jason MUST resign from SGP and must completely step away from ANY type of ministry for at least one to two years. Their conduct has dishonored Christ and if they are indeed Christians as they claim to be they won’t have any problem with this.

As far as Sam is concerned 1Timothy 3:1-7 has clear guidelines for those desiring to hold a leadership position within the Body of Christ. He’s failed miserably. Any honest church board would fire him for incompetence. He needs to walk away from that book as he has no business teaching anyone anything at this point.

I would also suggest that each of these “men”, after publicly apologizing and repenting submit to a nuetral pastor for restoration.

Harsh? You bet but you something? Sin has consequences just ask King David. The email, cover-up and subsequent damage control designed specifically to rally the troops, divert SGP members away from the real issue and to mock and malign their perceived enemies were all premeditated acts. Hardly Christian behavior.

Now I do not require that simply because I do not consider you three my Christian brothers but as sinning non-Christians. But the person who gave me this counsel has a point. If you want to be treated as if you are Christian, that is what will be called for. All I personally require is what I stated, the other is on your own consciences as to whether you want to be treated as Christians or not.

There was no response from Samuel for many days. In fact, Samuel never did respond or attempt to talk things out whatsoever. Instead what he did is to go to a third party (called Mr. Jones as this person does not, and had already in the past expressed that he did not, want to be involved in this matter) and tell Mr. Jones that we were unable to resolve the issue. This of course was news to me as Samuel never even responded to me through David after that initial email, instead he involved a person who had no desire to be involved—something which was clearly made known before.

What did Samuel then do? Precisely what I thought he would. Play a silly game to try to once again act as if he were a Christian brother and manipulate the facts. Samuel told David that Mr. Jones agreed to act as mediator, and as Mr. Jones has authority within the Christian Church, that Samuel wanted to submit this to the Church for a decision. I had already told him that I would never give him that credibility as he is not a Christian and thus not under the jurisdiction of any Church. All of this was moot, however, because Mr. Jones NEVER agreed to be a mediator despite what Samuel said to David. Mr. Jones told Samuel that he (Samuel) must work things out with me. Mr. Jones offered to assist in drawing up an agreement of what Samuel worked out with me. He never volunteered to be a mediator, judge, arbiter, or anything of the sort. Mr. Jones was not aware that a mediator was already involved and agreed to between the parties. Mr. Jones was not aware that I was not the only aggrieved party. Mr. Jones was not aware that I had communicated an offer to reconcile and the terms which Samuel never responded to. In short, Samuel has once again lied in order to make himself look humble and saintly, and despite being “wrongly” accused of being a non-Christian because he denies essentials of the faith, I was the big, bad, meanie who “refused” to be accountable to a Church judgement. Baloney. Mr. Jones never volunteered to render judgment. Mr. Jones could at any time tell me what he thought (and I am maintaining strictest confidence as to anything he did tell me) of the situation and ask me to submit.

Samuel did not need my permission to voluntarily submit to the judgment of Mr. Jones. He does not need me or my agreement, he was shamefully using the Church and Mr. Jones. SGP members, why don’t you challenge Samuel to go and submit to the judgment of Mr. Jones if he feels so strongly about it? If Samuel believes he is a Christian and wants to follow Matthew 18, there is nothing in that passage that requires the other person agree to “take it to the Church.” In fact, the passage assumes that one person will unilaterally do so. Go ahead Samuel, show how much you wish to submit to that authority. I don’t require you to do so as I do not believe you are under the jurisdiction of the Church. I required you to do what I would require of any person.

In fact this is what I told Dave he could relay to Samuel:

So basically, this is how it is. I told Samuel what was required. He rejected it, but never bothered to tell me he rejected it, and never bothered to give me the courtesy of proposing a counter-offer prior to involving anyone else. Instead, he ran off and tattled that we “couldn’t resolve it” which was news to me, and then misrepresented to you that he found another way to resolve the issue, all the while never asking me if he had my permission to involve another person. You asked my permission before getting involved. You asked Samuel’s permission. Samuel is in the wrong no matter how this is spun Dave. He purposefully postured himself to play the martyr.

And here are the facts. If he really believes that Mr. Jones agreed to be a judge, and that he would agree to submit to that judgment, why didn’t he just give my proposal to Mr. Jones, and then let Mr. Jones tell him what he should do. Neither my consent nor participation is required for HIM to submit to an outside judgment. If he is such a wonderful peacemaker in his shameless self-promoting article, why didn’t he do that? If he believes I am wrong, he doesn’t need my agreement. He can say he submitted it to a mutual friend who happens to be head of a local church for judgment, and this is that judgment. It doesn’t matter if I accept it or not. That could be his answer. If he believes he is a Christian, Matthew 18 does not require my consent. He can go put it to the church on his own. He doesn’t want to do that. He knows full well why I would disagree, and I have a pretty good suspicion on his motives.

Back when I wrote an apology to Samuel that he still has refused to acknowledge, I asked Mr. Jones’ opinion of it and followed his counsel. Samuel didn’t have to agree to a thing.

If Samuel is sooo willing, and is such a peacemaker, I challenge him to put the rubber to the road. Have him go take those issues outlined in my post and submit it to Mr. Jones for his judgment. My consent is not required. But Samuel will not limit it to the issues at hand. I know him. But here we go, he wants to be such a peacemaker who bends over backwards, I double-dog dare him (yes again the terminology is meant to be humourous). Have him voluntarily submit to what they say. If they say he is right, he can wave that around, and then it is up to me what I wish to do. If they say he is wrong, it is he who is so eager to prove that he is this wonderful Christian peacemaker who only wants to submit to a local church. Then go ahead Samuel. Submit. He doesn’t need my permission. He already unilaterally started it, let him finish it. Mr. Jones does not wish to be involved. If Samuel believes differently, then let him act accordingly. He doesn’t need me.

So nothing I have said in this post is news to Samuel; I have not blind-sided him.

Again, I wouldn’t have mentioned any of this and did not intend to (and I let Mr. Jones know I would, and that I would protect his privacy), if Samuel did not once again lie and set himself up as a martyr in this self-serving piece called “Letter from The Heart.” Horsefeathers.

Here are some key points that need to be exposed.

I have always been a peacemaker. In High school my friends ranged from the “metal heads” to the “jocks.” I always had a lot of friends. One of my favorite verses in the Bible is “try to live at peace with all men.” The proverb says, “a righteous man will cause even his enemies to be at peace.”

I bet you always have been humble too, right Samuel? It is totally inappropriate to sing your own praises, even moreso when they are false. You did nothing that was required for peace. You defended inappropriate behaviour towards another man’s wife, lied multiple times, and participated in a libelous cover-up. Those are not the actions of a peacemaker.

There are some situations in which those you seek peace with will have no peace. It’s like the Hamas and Israel. To many demands are required that neither party is willing to accept. It’s a fact of life. You want to call, “truce”, but there is no truce.

Nonsense. My only “demand” was repentance for the wrongs. His implicit claim that he made a demand I would not accept is illusory. Mr. Jones never was going to be a judge between he and me. Samuel played false.

Then, there were Paul’s enemies that continued to fabricate or blow out of proportion Paul’s message in order to spread rumors about him, to bring him down. God won in the end. In other words, there are times when nothing you do or say with your enemies works, and you just have to say, “let go, and let God.”

So Samuel is comparing himself to Paul and insinuating that I have wronged him!!! By daring to appear in a photograph so that Michael could call me the re-fullment of the Whore of Babylon? By daring to call out Samuel when he defended that action? By having the nerve to demand that he stop lying?

And here is the question that the Three Blind Men have tried to ignore, but it won’t go away. Why precisely did Michael send a copy of that email to Roderick? SGP members ask yourself that and the malevolence of his actions and the subsequent fall-out is quite obvious.

Try to live at peace with all men. With our enemies, we are, thank God, at a time when we can simply ignore them. They can’t confiscate houses or burn us at the stake.

Samuel has tried that passive-aggressive smear before. I will answer how I did before. This is what Samuel said to me before in a debate right off the bat to poison the well:

No doubt, if we were alive 500 years ago, Dee and Keith Mathison would be gathering up the sticks to burn us at the stakes (that’s what they did with officially condemned heretics - Even Calvin had no problem with watching the heretic Servetus get his). I think of movies like Frankenstein, where the villagers are armed with torches and pitchforks. Well, today it is not so violent. That may be because it is against the law to kill heretics. I wonder what would happen, though, if these people were in power and heresy was a crime? I shudder, but enough ad misericordium [sic](look it up).

I responded:

No doubt eh? Now that Samuel has established that he believes (or less strongly has no compunction against insinuating such in a tongue-in-cheek manner) that I have murderous intents only kept in check by force of law, the rest of his rant against not speaking ill of “brethren” (which he believes I am though I absolutely do not reciprocate) and the “dangers” of doing so are shown for the passive-aggressive nonsense that they are. Samuel has packed in this one paragraph more personal invective than I have ever raised or would raise against him. He has zero proof of this charge, he simply soils the moral landscape because he doesn’t like my doctrinal position. By his own histrionical assertion, he has just broad-brushed anyone who has ever condemned anything as heresy. Is Arianism heresy? If Samuel thinks so, then I bet he would just love to BBQ a few JWs, right? No? This is a flat-out nonsenical ad hominen that has ZERO to do with the truth statement of my position. Samuel does in fact admit this with his phrase that he asks us to look up: ad misericordium[sic]. His statement definitely does fall under the rubric of a fallacious appeal to emotion, perhaps more specifically as a combination of an Argument ad Odium (i.e. appeal to spite), an Argument ad Misericordiam (i.e. appeal to misery/pity), and an Argumentum ad Metum (i.e. appeal to fear). This move is textbook passive-aggressive behaviour …. “oh well maybe I didn’t really mean that” after the comment has been thrown out there.

So Samuel, here is the call once again. Do the right thing. Act like the leader you hold yourself out to be.

SGP members, grow a backbone and be men for once. Confront the sins of your leaders.

This is the end of it for me unless Samuel chooses to sin against me yet again over this matter. It was over for me with the Three Blind Men post until Samuel lied and manipulated both privately and publicly yet again.

Samuel’s piece is more likely the Tell-Tale Heart. His sin is open before him, and try as he might, he cannot conceal it beneath the floorboards. Its beating goes on no matter how many times he tries to silence it.

Samuel refuses to hold Michael and Jason accountable. He refuses to be accountable. This is yet another opportunity for the SGP community to hold them accountable or be tainted with this scandal for times to come.

The very sad thing about all of this is that but for Bennett’s gargantuan pride, this could have been over in a day. He simply had to admit it was a stupid and impulsive thing to do and apologize. I make enough rash decisions myself for which I apologize to ever demand a pound of flesh from someone who owns up to their errors. Samuel and Jason both privately told him he should, yet they put on a united and false public false to lie to the SGP community. They compounded sin upon sin and no abundance of talk will silence the Tell-Tale Heart.

Thump, thump, thump, thump…………