Samuel Frost, the manipulator once again
Filed Under (hyperpreterism) by dee dee on 15-07-2009
Tagged Under : Samuel Frost
In reference to the upcoming debate between he and Dr. Talbot, a debate which I encouraged behind the scenes, this is what Samuel has to say:
Ofcourse, Dee Dee chimes in to offer as much “help” as possible. The thing is, Dr. T. finds Don Preston’s debate style noteworthy. There is no denying his ability. I do not have that kind of style. That’s why we opted, first, for a written style. But, back to the point, Dr. T. wants me involved because we are both Reformed. That means we have a lot of shared propositions (and we will both emphasize that point). That’s pretty much the reason. I will, however, certainly enlist the help of Don P. - a man I consider a giant (by the way, Roderick’s slander of Don “ditching” his congregation is simply evil. Ask Jack Scott, who is now pastoring Ardmore Church of Christ - Ask Don himself - ask Don’s former congregation, who attends the Ardmore Conferences - being held this weekend. Yeah, Don really “ditched” them……man this guy needs a life).
I only quoted the whole paragraph so that Samuel cannot say I truncated his words, but I am only concerned with the bolded part (bolding was done by me). Why was Samuel compelled to say that? It is just like the snarky comments he made about my appearance on Iron Sharpens Iron (that podcast dealing with Samuel’s comments is almost done). Why wouldn’t I offer to help, Samuel? Why is “help” in quotes? Go ahead, explain that to me please.
Again, Roderick, ever wanting to be a part of something, wrote in response to Dr. T.’s announcement, “I am eager to see the Frost-Talbot debate. Just please don’t let them turn it into, “See, Dr. Talbot thinks we’re in error but at least he still thinks we’re within the pale of Christianity” — since that seems to always be the m.o. of Frost whenever someone like DeMar, Jordan or others give hyperpreterists even a ounce of a hearing. Again, it is all about obtaining validity with these folks. They are desperate to sit at the theological table.” I am beginning to think Chuck’s psychological profile may be somewhat truthful! See, Roddy boy, I ALREADY sit at the table. I was INVITED. Why? Because Dr. T. and I are friends. Get it? See, he operates Christian charity, even to “heretics.” Get it? He is a Christian. Get it? I already have validity “with these folks” and with the Seminary: M.A.R. and M.A.C.S. Get it? If I didn’t have validity, do you honestly think Dr. T. would even bother to call me?
Samuel once again spins things in appropriately. When Roderick mentions the “theological table,” Samuel knows full well that Roderick means “as a legitimate Christian view.” So no Samuel, Dr. Talbot has not invited you to that table, so stop misrepresenting the situation.
Now I am going to concentrate on the part I bolded. This type of stuff is precisely why Samuel is oft-accused of name dropping and spinning. What precisely do you have validity as Samuel? Is it the same validity that Roderick was talking about or are you purposefully equivocating? You have validity as one of the top hyperpreterists. I acknowledged that validity on the Iron Sharpens Iron show. Do you think that is the validity Roderick was talking about? Do you believe that you have validity with Dr. Talbot as having a Christian eschatology? Why do you play with words so much Samuel?
Your dropping of your degrees does not give you Christian validity. Bart Eerhman has oodles of degrees. See, when you carelessly say things like “I already have validity “with these folks” and with the Seminary: M.A.R. and M.A.C.S.,” you make it appear as if “these folks” and the Seminary may disagree with your eschatology, but don’t consider it heretical. That is false. Your eschatology has NO validity with them—and that is the subject of the date.
Now to another passive-aggressive comment of Samuel:
Chuck asks, “Sam, is Dr. Talbot fully aware of the horrific behavior of these pret-haters?”
That is a typical cultic tactic. People who oppose Mormons are “Mormon haters” now too. Chuck, you slander me. I hate no one, I don’t even hate Virgil Vadulva who made my life a living hell, but will never do so again. Horrific behaviour? Must I rehash the behaviour of Samuel and company with the whole whore of Babylon incident? No, I didn’t think so. And no, I don’t care to either.
Samuel responds:
Chuck,
Sr. Talbot is ardently against Hyper Preterism, but, no, he does not stoop to their level of character. Not in the slightest.
Samuel, ask Dr. Talbot what he thinks of my character and post it openly on the SGP forum. Do you have the courage of your convictions to do so? You encourage Chuck in thinking that Dr. Talbot believes my behaviour is horrific (I am not speaking of Roderick, not because I think he has done anything horrific, but because I can only speak for myself and my private conversations with Dr. Talbot).
Samuel do you have the guts to tell Chuck that Dr. Talbot doesn’t consider us horrific? You are complicit in a lie. And speaking of hypocrisy, that comment was in a thread calling William Hill a hypocrite. You see, it is okay for you guys to “attack” people (I put attack in quotes because I do not hold unequal weights and measures as you do—I don’t consider that an attack but a criticism that the author is entitled to make without being called a “hater”), but if we do it, all of a sudden it is wrong.
The Lord despiseth unequal weights and measures. I eagerly await your response to the two things I asked you. In case you are unclear, here are the two things that I would like a public response to:
1. Why did you feel the need to sarcastically refer to my offer to help Dr. Talbot? Why was “help” in parenthesis?
2. Will you ask Dr. Talbot what he thinks of my character and publicly post it on SGP (I give Dr. Talbot permission to be totally candid)? Why do you mislead the SGP members into thinking that Dr. Talbot thinks we are “horrific.” You know how Dr. Talbot felt about the whole WoB issue, will you publicly post that?
This Samuel is why I believe you have no theological ethics and are louche with your words. That is my opinion. I do not need to name-drop or insinuate that anyone shares it. If they do, they can speak for themselves.
PS: Do you think Dr. Talbot would support your use of “Roddy boy”? Why are you so threatened Samuel that you have to behave that way?
This is the reason I think it is unwise to enter into any “legitimizing” endeavor with Sam Frost & company. They behave like petulant little kids. They are using Dr. Talbot’s name & reputation like a personal football (“Looky Looky, Dr. Talbot likes us so we are okay”). They weren’t being so nice to Dr. Talbot just not too long ago.
Further, Sam’s statement about “Roderick, ever wanting to be a part of something” is ironic since it is Sam who has the reputation & pattern of a panderer. How many of the “Mathison Response” projects did you float around to again Sam??? All 3 of them? You even had to ask Dave Green’s group if you could pretty-pretty please “be part” of their group. So, Sam I could have easily been “part” & WAS “part” of something within the Hyperpret movement. I was ALREADY part of the Green response but left when I realized my conscience would not let me continue within the movement. I could have been Virgil’s little darling if I did like you & tell him how wonderful & “loving” he is. As a matter of fact, if you recall, I WAS the most prolific author on Virgil’s website until his postmodernism & Emergentism & subtle universalism turned me off to what that place was all about.
So Sam — What in the world are you talking about? You are the one that calls up DeMar on a radio show & first thing you do is have to remind him how you once roomed with him (listen to Sam say it) — sheeeesh. Talk about a guy who is desperate to “be part of something”. Now, Dr. Talbot is going to debate you & you think you & he are suddenly best buds. Ask him if he thinks you’re a heretic & spreading damnable heresy?
As for the Chuck Coty comments & Sam supporting them. Um Chuck — since you have no idea what you are talking about & you continue to support men like Jason Bradfield & Mike Bennett who depicted Dee Dee as the WoB, I’d think you might want to keep your mouth shut. Chuck is constantly telling others how to behave “Christ-like” all the while he is the king of passive-aggressive barbs.
More hypocrISY from SGP site.
SGP members are KNOWN for not citing & source linking so that a reader can view the full context of something the author is writing about. YET, recently a couple of SGP members said:
Really??? How many times are these folks going to be REAL Hypocrites? They are like liberal politicians that accuse people of the very things they themselves do.
That is one reason why I quoted Samuel in full rather than just reproduce the points I wanted to address. I want the reader to be confident that I am not yanking things out of context.
I got so used to not posting links to the SGP threads because they would inevitably be broken. It looks like SGP has opened up the compound, so I will get the links to the two above quotes. They were in two different discussion threads, one with the word hypocrisy misspelled in the title, and the other was about the upcoming debate.
Well here I am again up late and working!!! I had better get some rest before I tire myself out completely and get sick again. I feel oodles better, but I still tire very easily which is probably in large part to not eating very well when I wasn’t feeling well, and I have dropped about five pounds, and I was borderline too skinny for my height before. I need to pack on a few, and I think I will feel much more strengthened.
Plus work has been hectic!! We just filed motions in limine and a motion for summary judgment, and anyone remotely involved in law knows how much time and effort and drafting and just nose to the grindstone goes into those types of filings.
I just realized in clarifying what I asked of Samuel that I said parenthesis when I should have said quote marks. That’s okay, I made it clear earlier.
Another thing came to my mind while I was re-reading my post today (I re-read my posts over multiple times, not only for grammar, but to make sure that I was not inappropriate and just didn’t see at the time of posting—all of us can get in a snit and post something snotty that requires a retraction later), Samuel bragged that he was invited to debate Dr. Talbot. I do not believe that is accurate from my understanding of things. He makes it seem as if there were some formal invitation. Obviously I am not privy to the arrangements, but I did encourage a debate with Samuel for several months with Dr. Talbot, and it is my understanding that Samuel offered to debate, and his offer was accepted. That is NOT an invitation. Normally I would just let that slide as a poor choice of words, but in context, Samuel was bragging how he was invited to a debate with a man of long-standing scholarship. That is not how things went as I understand it. I welcome any correction.
I am buried in things due to my month off, so I likely will not be checking as thoroughly as i usually do to see if Samuel responds to my requests. I ask the readers to let me know if they see that he does.
Samuel, as I said above, I am not interested in getting into that past WoB situation. You guys were confronted, only one person apologized, it is over and done with; I have written that off as an unrepentant sin. But you are now speaking boastfully once again, so this current situation I am going to pursue.
I am tired of you snarkily referring to me in offhand ways that insinuate that I am stupid or unqualified. I am neither of those. Neither are you. We are both intelligent and qualified. I don’t know why that is so hard for you to admit. I have never denied that of you.
Second, I am tired of your cheerleading to the home team that somehow Dr. Talbot has denounced me and given you his imprimatur. You keep implying that Dr. Talbot disapproves of me. That is not true. I would take his words very seriously to heart. In fact, I do not mind sharing where he has counseled me to be a bit more cautious, and though I did not agree, I am still taking it to heart prayerfully. He said that I should be cautious in using words like “sucks” or “crap” as that might offend some people needlessly. That is the only thing that I have been counseled on, and I am still reflecting on it. Samuel, stop insinuating otherwise. I call upon you, nay I challenge you to ask Dr. Talbot what he thinks of my character and to publicly post that at SGP.
You won’t. Why? I give Dr. Talbot my full permission to speak freely and candidly and allow you to repeat such things publicly so there is no breach here of any trust. I give permission to all.
Also why is that that when Roderick was a hyperpreterist and current hyperpreterist David Green never accused me of “hating” them. Why do you guys have to do that? It is very immature and manipulative (not to mention passive aggressive). Roderick got the caustic end of my tongue way more than anyone else, and we remained friends, and he never thought I hated him. And this goes back years, not just to the period of time when he was reconsidering his beliefs. He never told me he was reconsidering his beliefs.
And I do have to speak up once again as to Samuel attack on Roderick “needing to be a part of something.” Samuel, I have said this before so you have no excuse. Roderick did NOT jump at the opportunity to work with me here. In fact he declined at first, and then agreed to limited involvement, and it was I who insisted and pressed upon him. He did not seek whatever platform he has here. I gave it to him and refused to allow him to give it back.
Lastly, even if what you said were true, what is wrong with wanting to be a part of something? Humans are social beings. We need each other. It is our nature to bond and work with people in common goals. God is a social being as the Trinity is in communion. Christians of all people realize that fellowship and community and being active for the Kingdom is not only in our nature, it is commanded by Christ. Mocking that is mocking both the way that God created us and the commands of Christ. Think twice.
With all that, I don’t believe you hate me. I do believe you are very threatened by me for some reason and that is why you compulsively shove in snotty comments about me whenever possible. I really think you should reflect on that. I am not saying this with an ounce of malice or pleasure.
I’m never surprised when Sam throws his degrees around. He displays them much like the WOF crowd displays their wealth through their Bentleys.
It isn’t the degrees that validate Sam anymore than the Bentleys validate the WOF.
I see Sam attribute to Dr. Talbot a characteristic I don’t believe defines anything remotely I’ve witnessed in Dr. Talbot and that’s simply Sam’s implication that Dr. Talbot wouldn’t bother with Sam if he wasn’t validated by a degree. Sam had done Dr. Talbot a great diservice by the implication.
I think Sam has confused Dr. Talbot with himself. It’s Sam who doesn’t think anyone without a degree is worthy of his time in debate.
One thing I would like to add here. Imho, it isn’t the degrees that validate Dr. Talbot, it’s Dr. Talbot who validates the degrees by the way he makes use of them.
Mike Bennett wrote me to complain about Roderick’s first comment. There will be more to say about his email, but so that the reader is not confused, yes I did forgive Mike over the WoB issue despite the fact that his subsequent behaviour is not bearing the fruit of repentance. Roderick is not bound by my acceptance; he doesn’t believe Mike’s apology was sincere. Mike and company have a bad habit of trying to pit Roderick and I against each other. If Mike truly had an issue with Roderick, he should have written Roderick not me–a person he has been told multiple times NOT to write. Mike further complained that Jason was still being accountable as if Mike’s apology covered everyone. It doesn’t. Jason and Samuel never repented. Mike partially repented and still stubbornly refuses to acknowledge his lie about the threatening email, which lie was mixed in with his apology.
I believe that is all the clarification that is needed on my part. Mike proceeded to compound his sin, something I will address separately and later as this post is about Samuel, not Mike.
Oh and for guys that allegedly never read this blog and counsel others to ignore it as well, they seem to know fairly well what is said. I find that odd. I realize that friends may be relaying the information, but when there is a blog or person I wish to avoid, I tell my friends to stop bringing it up. Getting the same information by friends yet still claiming to be undefiled from reading here is just as cagey as claiming that Roderick or I are verboten to mention at their site, yet call us things such as “he or she who will not be named.”
Yo Roderick, I took a quick visit over there, and there was this thread I had seen before, but didn’t think it was about you since there is the rule never to mention you so I thought the “Edwards” in the title must have been about someone else as Samuel wouldn’t possibly start a thread so explicitly about you–especially considering the shameful abuse that David Green was dealt by Jason Bradfield by actually sticking up for me and naming us. Well it is. You might want to read it. What is interesting is that at least Chuck has the backbone to call Samuel out on his compulsion regarding you. Good for Chuck. Chuck is calling for the deletion of the thread so it might be gone before you see it. So, go into drafts in the Admin panel here and I copied Samuel’s post for you and me as there are a few statements in his post I want to address. My jaw dropped when I read them. And it is full of pandering to Dr. Talbot with a flattering tongue that will just as soon cut as sooth. I don’t need to go on and cheerlead about how ably and ethically that Dr. Talbot will engage the debate to earn “brownie points” for myself. Each man’s character is judged by the fruit they produce.
Wow Dorothy you really pinned that one. Sam makes a mockery of his degrees. If I was the president of the seminary where Sam obtained the said degrees, I’d encourage him to NOT mention the seminary since how Sam MISuses his degrees may reflect poorly on the seminary.
Dee Dee. I read the article by Sam & there are several issues I might chime in on if you write a response article, however since Sam is in full panderer mode, he is doing a pretty good job at exposing himself.
From my seat in the stands, Sam’s degrees are a defining characteristic of himself. He idolizes them and thus he expects others to bow down to that idol.
From what I have seen, Dr. Talbot, uses his degrees like a tool and that’s all they are, a tool. If Dr. Talbot set down his degrees and walked away, they would have no power over him. Not so with Sam I’m afraid.
Yes, there is a vast difference between the two men and people should take notice. Imho, Dr. Talbot has already won the first round and a pen hasn’t even been put to paper.
The same thing happens with their eschatology. I do believe it has become an idol. They look to it for salvation and not the Cross. That’s why so many of them consider it necessary for salvation and Mike Sullivan can declare we are hardened of heart. He has turned his idealogy into an idol. No longer is it sola fide, solus Christus, it has become sola fide in his version of eschatology. He can’t rest in the accomplished work of the Cross. He has to add to it. To not believe in his eschatological position is to be unsaved. It’s a subtle shift in focus, but it is still bowing down to the idol. You no longer can have victory in what Christ accomplished at the Cross - you can only have victory in their eschatology. That’s why Larry Siegle can claim we are not victorious unless we hold to his view.
Now I know they will claim we do the same with our essential doctrines, but our doctrines are a natural outpouring and a conversion is a life changing event in the life of a believer. It is reflected in our character.
Imho the difference between a doctrine that’s an idol through idealogy and sound doctrine is an idol can’t change anything. They have no power to do so. That’s why we look at those in the HP camp and see unrepentant sin running rampant. When you’re under the influence of an idol, you have no boundaries and that’s why I contend they will marry themselves to any whore of a doctrine to propogate with little or no accountability within the community. Every God mocking belief is allowed at the table. I fear their eschtology has become the golden calf.
It can be easy for anyone to do. I know when I first became convinced of orthodox preterism, there was a year or two when I was falling into that trap. Now, sometimes wants to aggressively argue (I mean someone orthodox), I go “Eh, have fun, I am really not interested in a cage match.” Now I stay involved not because I think I am right and want to bellow it to the world, but because I am calmly assured that this is where God wants me to be, even though all kinds of other interests are vying for my attention.
Pride is a devilish little bugger.
I agree Dee Dee. I’ve fallen into that trap a few times myself.
Like you, I do believe this is where God wants me at this time.
I would also like to point something out from comments made by Sam at SGP. He made much ado about a comment Roderick made here and removed. HE HAS A COPY!!!
What Sam fails to inform his readers is that I asked Rod to modify or remove the comment and Rod removed it. At the time we were in mediation with Sam and one of the issues brought to me was how we communicated with each other. I asked for an example and this particular one was pointed out. The reason I addressed it with Rod was to convey a willingness on my part to ask for removal or modification of posts that were a stumbling block.
Sam has to paint this in an ugly light because he simply can’t let his readers know how willing we were to work with Sam in mediation. If they knew what did take place there, I think they would not approve of Sam walking away from the table. Everyone must remember that we were dealing with sin from Sam’s camp…yet we were quite willing to make concessions exhibiting good faith in other areas but Sam just can’t accept that nor does he want his followers to read that action in a good light.
I actually need to correct my statement above. I’ve probably worshipped just about anything known to man that could be made into an idol. Then God took me to my knees and I don’t resemble the person I use to be. Those things I upheld in high worth are now just tools and they certainly don’t define me.
I was reading David Clarkson yesterday and this caught my eye so I thought I’d share:
The lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye and the pride of life, ie. pleasures, riches and honors, are the carnal man’s trinity, the three great idols of worldly men, to which they prostrate their souls; and giving that to them which is due only to God, they hereby become guilty of idolatry.
So true. I can easily make (and do at times) material items an idol. That is one reason I started my Apple satire fan blog, to laugh at me and every over-the-top fanboi and fangrl to remember not to take that stuff too seriously, and that there are more important things in life. “Stuff” is great as long as it in its proper place.