Samuel Frost, Liar and…. Plagiarist?
Filed Under (dee dee's posts, hyperpreterism, twaddle) by dee dee on 12-03-2009
Tagged Under : Samuel Frost, sovereign grace preterism
I am going to have a really good time showing what a manipulative snake Samuel is. But now he has indulged into at least semi-plagiarism (perhaps inadvertently) and unethical quoting, definitely intentionally.
Check out his comment here:
(see bottom of page one of comments)
Which is directly lifted from someone else’s writing for which, as usual, he doesn’t source. He gives a hint at the top that it isn’t his work and by the use of quote marks which isn’t obvious unless you already knew that. He could have been quoting some of his own work. Perhaps he meant for the “this” to be a hyperlink. It isn’t.
The simple fact is that Samuel has lied about what I believe, but he has done something far more insidious than that. I will let him stew in what that could possibly be. But it is a doozy and will be the subject of another post. Samuel is already in panic damage-control mode. If he really understood molinism, he wouldn’t have to copy and paste what someone else wrote. But it was full of nice fancy words to make him look smarter than he is. That was my first clue that he didn’t write it.
SGP members, listen closely, and you will hear the hiss. Samuel is speaking lies, manipulations, and half-truths. Of course, you guys believe the father of lies has been destroyed, so you can’t even say the devil made him do it.
Samuel is looking more and more like a cult leader every day.
Everyone you have tried this trick with outside your little circle has seen it for the lie it is. Please continue; you are helping me than you could ever imagine. Thank you.
Oh whatever will you do if I ever became a Calvinist? Would you have to resort back to defending emails picturing me as the Whore of Babylon or emailing me calling me “old gal” or a “lesbian housewife”?
Here’s a hint Samuel, you tried this same stunt, more precisely Michael Bennett did, of which I am pretty sure you are aware, in 2006, and were corrected then. What do you call someone who repeats a falsehood after being corrected? A liar. Pathetic and totally unbecoming a “leader.”
BTW Samuel, I don’t consider you an expert either though I know you fancy yourself one. If you are an expert, so am I. But you aren’t; so you can take that for what its worth in your boastful parade.
To SGP members as I am convinced that Samuel is thoroughly corrupt, ask yourself why he didn’t quote this part:
One possible scenario is that God first resolves absolutely that Peter should freely elicit A in C and then, as it were, consults his middle knowledge to see just which particular graces would, if bestowed on Peter in C, obtain his free consent and thus issue in A. It follows that, given his antecedent resolution, God would have conferred some grace other than G if he had known by his middle knowledge that G would turn out to be “merely sufficient” with respect to A, i.e., that Peter would not freely consent to G in C. So G is rendered efficacious not only by Peter’s free consent but also, and indeed more principally, by God’s antecedent predetermination to confer a “congruous” grace that will guarantee Peter’s acting well in C. This model, which brings Molinism more into line with Bañezianism, is known as Congruism and was worked out in detail by Robert Bellarmine and Francisco Suárez. In 1613 Congruism was mandated for all Jesuit theologians by the Father General Claude Aquiviva.
Source which Samuel neglected to note, was it because he didn’t want you to see this part? Could it be because you would then see that his snarky “take your pick” comment on the end was deceptive since he didn’t even give you the opportunity to know the full menu from which to pick, at least according to that article?
The discerning reader will also note that Samuel didn’t quote a thing from William Lane Craig. A honest person will quote from the most recent material available. It would be like disproving postmillennialism by quoting from early postmillennialists which do not believe the same thing as modern postmillenialists.
The term “molinism” happens to be the widely accepted label. It is not an indication that one accepts everything that the popularizer Molina proposed. If so, does Samuel accept everything Luther said? Even in his diatribes against the Jews? Even in his approval of polygamy? Which SGP members, you should know that Samuel doesn’t believe is sinful, but simply less than God’s ideal. The logical conclusion of this would be that if Samuel took a second wife, it might be illegal, it might be less than God’s ideal, but it wouldn’t be a sin. I think he has a whole lot more to worry about other than his ignorance on Molinism which he pretended to cure by one of his typical argumentum ad googleum tactics. This type of selective quotation is highly unethical.
Just in case Samuel tries to add back in the link and claim that I just didn’t see it, I went and looked at the source code for the page:
Dee Dee claims that I don’t know what Molinism is. I wrote that God does not know contingent events. Well, that’s an abbreviation of this:
No html link tags. Don’t even try it Samuel. I have a screenshot of the source code.
I also want to add that Samuel slyly tries to poison the well by emphasizing “Jesuits.” That is called biting off your nose to spite your face since the popularizer of preterism was a Jesuit. The fact is back then, the RCC was dominant, and the odds are, many of the thinkers were RCC by default.
Samuel loves to play logician. That is called the genetic fallacy.
If Samuel has even bothered to read the works of Alvin Plantinga or William Lane Craig (particularly The Only Wise God), he simply doesn’t know what he is talking about. At a bare minimum he should have read and quoted Craig.
But Samuel doesn’t care about accuracy; he cares about cheap debating tactics.
Samuel do yourself a favour and ask our mutual friend David Green for advice/opinion on how well you do, simply style and presentation-wise, when you go up against me. Clue: you look bad. All of this is regardless of who is right or not. The fact is that I am a more clever writer than you are. Don’t try to be clever with me. You are out-matched. This isn’t a brag. I bet you sing better than I do because I can’t imagine anyone being worse than I am. Therefore I wouldn’t try to out-sing you.
Dee Dee
I am confused by the recent posts. I was under the impression that you and Sam were communicating with each other in some way with a view toward taking a more civil tone toward each other. Was I mistaken?
It seems that all of the focus is on Sam and SGP. Are there not more important issues about HP and the actual doctrinal differences that should be discussed? This is your site and you have to do what you believe the Lord wants you to do, but dealing with personalities more than what the Scriptures teach does not really accomplish what you, Roderick and others intend to do, does it?
Do you believe that people who hold this view will turn away from it because of anything Sam, Jason, Michael, or anyone else DOES. Nobody about which I am aware has embraced HP because of any leadership characteristics of Sam or anyone else. People hold the view because we believe it is consistent with the text and see no other viable alternative being offered that makes sense from a theological standpoint.
You often liken HP to cults such as JW and Mormons. Almost nobody leaves these groups because someone attacks their leaders and founders. If you mention C.T. Russell, the JW says, “So what?” If you attack J. Smith, the Mormon says, “Who cares?” People believe what they believe because they are convinced that it is the RIGHT doctrine. The argument must go deeper than the surface arguments that the leadership is corrupt therefore the doctrine is corrupt.
You will probably remove this comment and I certainly respect your reasons for doing so, but these are my honest thoughts from having read the last 10 posts written by yourself and others.
Respectfully
Larry Siegle
Larry, I think the confusion comes in by you thinking this website’s purpose is to help get people out of hyperpreterism. Considering most of the people on SGP ADMIT that they don’t read critiques of hyperpreterism (ie Chuck Coty), I’m not really certain there is any hope for them besides God whopping them upside their theological head. They are like ostriches with their heads stuck in the sand.
This sites purpose is more of an Eph 5:11/Rom 16:17-18 focus — WARN/EXPOSE/NOTE. It is to help keep people from becoming hyperpreterists in the first place. It is evident that once a person buys into the overarching premise of hyperpreterism — which is that supposedly 2000 years of Christians have missed the boat, such a person is open for all sorts of heresies beyond basic hyperpreterism. There are now major hyperpreterists advocating that the Genesis account isn’t about the cosmological creation of the universe, that Adam was NOT the first created human & on & on. However wrong this may be, it IS the “logical” conclusion/effect of hyperpreterist “hermeneutic”, which is ultimately a bastardized version of “Sola Scriptura” amounting to little more than private interpretation.
Exposing men like Sam Frost, Jason Bradfield, & Mike Bennett as the habitual liars they are should help some people avoid them like the plague — their cronies will stick with them to the ends of the earth.
No Larry, you are mistaken, but it is not your fault. There was no “negotiation.” Samuel and Jason needed to repent of their support of an email depicting another man’s wife as the Whore of Babylon. Samuel then tried to sneak all kinds of other issues in and acted in bad faith in various ways.
Civil? I am not “civil” towards liars and snakes. I have been civil towards you. I have been civil towards David Green. Neither of you are liars and snakes.
It concerns me though that all you seem to care about is how nice someone can be. You should be considered about the integrity of the man who has came to one of the foremost proponents of hyperpreterism.
Samuel has outright lied multiple times during the last month. I do not deal with habitual liars or men that have no scruples. He lies about what I believe in, and in his commentary about the radio show, he pulled a really sneaky move that people who actually care about integrity will care about.
One thing I learned with JWs. If you try to talk the Trinity with them directly most of them will shut down. They trust the Watchtower too much. Character matters. Once you show them that the Watchtower is a lying corrupt group that has propounded false prophecies; it helps to free them to consider that they have been deceived.
The cheerleaders at SGP aren’t merely differing on doctrinal issues. They are cheering sin. Some people at SGP are starting to see the light. Roderick didn’t come out of hyperpreterism until he started to see how corrupt so many of the leaders were.
You see I believe this is a spiritual battle. Hyperpreterists can’t believe that. I believe that demonic forces still deceive people. Hyperpreterists cannot do that. I believe liars and people who support defaming another man’s wife as the Whore of Babylon should repent. Apparently most hyperpreterists don’t believe that either.
This site is to expose all facets of hyperpreterism. If I were combatting JWs, I would be exposing the Watchtower regularly.
Roderick is correct; and it something the hyperpreterists have refused to admit or understand. My intended audience isn’t hyperpreterists. It never has been. My audience is the orthodox. Always has been. And those teetering on either edge. An orthodox person who just needs to know there are people and material to help them resist; and a person looking to come out of hyperpreterism, knowing the attacks they will have to endure, to know that people have endured it before them and have their back.
During the worst of hyperpreterist assault on me (figurative, before Samuel hints he is going to sue me again), I really didn’t see God’s purpose. Now I do. If I made it through that, others know that they can, and it is blue skies eventually.
[...] hyperpreterist have a three-year life cycle of lying arguments they use. Samuel is right on track. He once again misrepresents molinism and said once again said I misrepresented David Green. I did [...]