Exposing some shoddy Frostian logic
Filed Under (dee dee's posts, history) by dee dee on 02-08-2009
Tagged Under : logic, Samuel Frost
In his transparent attempt to use Dr. Talbot and cause division, Samuel wrote a piece which contained multiple problematic statements.
To quote another Reformed scholar, we “stand on the shoulders of giants as dwarfs. We cannot see as much as we see without those shoulders, yet the giant cannot complain that he cannot see what we see, for we stand over him.” This is what we are doing.
It appears that Samuel fundamentally misunderstands and thus misuses that statement. Of course he hyperliteralizes it as being an actual person standing on the shoulder of another actual person. It is as silly as Microsoft’s “I’m a PC” commercials which totally fail to miss the point that Apple’s commercials are not trying to claim that the two characters are literal operating systems, but rather anthropomorphisms.
Likewise, in the above saying, the “men” are the foundational principles of the Christian faith that the Spirit has given to the Church. Samuel isn’t standing on any “shoulders.” He has shot the men in the knees. He isn’t standing on essential doctrine but denying it.
It is amazing to me that no one at SGP pointed out this shallow bit of argumentation.
Why do I absolutely love the Athanasian Creed?
Samuel has been corrected in this before? Does he loves these parts?
39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;
40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
No I didn’t think so.
This is why I so look forward to the sane debate with Dr. Talbot.
This is the tactic that is so shoddy. You don’t compliment one person for no other reason than to put down another. Samuel here is what I think. I think Dr. Talbot is going to show you what it really means to stand on the shoulders of giants. And hopefully, you will accept his hand up to the very same shoulders.
If this is the kind of shoddy emotive reasoning he employs in HD, I will expose it in kind.
I cannot find the article you are referring to. I searched SGP, what is it called?
It appears to have been removed or is too old for the Ning search function. I had the text saved from an RSS feed (IIRC) right before Jason opened up the site again. It doesn’t show up on the ning search, but that doesn’t mean for sure it has been removed as the ning search is notoriously bad. If you ask Samuel, he will likely remember. I would guess it is from about 4 to 6 weeks ago.
Another statement in the piece that I didn’t quote that might help you find it is where Samuel was obsequiously talking about how he and Dr. Talbot have the same starting presuppositions which is why he was asked (which isn’t true–that isn’t why he was asked–he was asked because he rashly volunteered and he is arguably the most public scholarly face of the movement). Then Samuel slyly tried to claim it was his Seminary training that led him to hyperpreterism.
Samuel will remember the article. He will disagree with my analysis of it, but I doubt he will deny its existence. It got a lot of rah-rahs from the home crowd, and if I am not mistaken Larry, that included you.
Samuel posted an illogical response
SOURCE
What makes Samuel think I don’t understand the relationship they have? That’s right. He assumed. Samuel, please follow your own advice. Go ask Dr. Talbot if I understand the kind of relationship you two have before you assume. I know that you were planning on giving him a copy of your book, and I know you two lunch frequently. I know you two are friends. What is there that I don’t understand Samuel?
Samuel has a serious case of not getting it. In context, this “use” of someone doesn’t mean they can’t know about it or see it because you are not literally using them to do something–you are using their reputation, their activities, their knowledge for a purpose that involves influencing other people. So your statement is kinda stupid.
But let’s pretend your interpretation were right. People do stupid things all the time.
I think you just answered your own question. Let me answer it by asking you:
Do you know how many times Dr. Talbot and I talk on the phone?
Do you know if we have any meeting plans?
Why don’t you? Because I don’t advertise personal relationships. You don’t know a thing about my relationship because I keep it that way. It is crass to keep trumpeting about it the way you do. That is how you are using people. Seriously Samuel, I know you think you are logical, but you are not.
You do not believe that I didn’t literally know who he was before you, do you? Do you credit yourself with the sun rising in the morning as well? Sheesh Samuel, get over yourself. And do ask Dr. Talbot if he would approve of your ad hom in that statement.
And ask him about that one. For someone that has allegedly calmed down, your pathos literally oozes from this piece.
Notice how I didn’t foot the capital of Delaware either. Why? It doesn’t matter to the point.
Samuel has no idea if I know or not. He is bragging, and is in full threatened defensiveness mode.
That statement right there disqualifies this piece from any legitimacy. Guess who else hasn’t read it at the time of his posting? Dr. Talbot. Samuel doesn’t say why I haven’t read it; he leaves the readers to assume I won’t. And it is just a tacky attempt to pat himself on the back once again.
I haven’t read it yet because I wouldn’t buy a copy. A hyperpreterist friend has bought me a copy. It will be read after the book I am currently reading which will be in the next blog entry (meaning book read on my own, it doesn’t count schoolwork).
And what part of that didn’t I understand? I am fully aware it is an allegory. An allegory is intended to teach something that is hidden behind the allegory. To ignore that is to hyperliteralize the allegory. That is what Samuel has done, but in his haste to vent, failed to grasp the point.
Oh boy, Samuel actually thinks I never heard the saying before. Well Samuel, you are wrong. Nearly any educated Christian has heard that saying, just like, “In essentials; unity. In nonessentials; charity. And in all things; charity.” It is ubiquitous. So you entire assumption is incorrect. The original allegory is a great one. I have used it before to show that hyperpreterism is false.
Yes and yes. Words have meaning Samuel unless you have become all postmodern on us. If someone sees Jesus in a tortilla and claims that is the Second Coming, and that is what is the Bible means, is he denying the Second Coming? Of course he is. You understand this, but purposefully obfuscate. Though not very well.
So back to why you have warped the allegory. You DON’T stand on their shoulders. You envision yourselves as new Luthers. You reject the essentials that these giants represent. It is their knowledge and learning and experience that is allegorized by height in the allegory. But you reject that, thus you cannot stand or sit or do anything on their shoulders.
Your shallow reasoning may convince the home crowd, but that will be about it.
You are the one who said you loved the Athanasian Creed which would damn you to hell for your beliefs.
Please ask Dr. Talbot about your last statement there and see if he thinks it is appropriate. Your malice is palpable.
Where did I say that? Samuel is grasping yet again. He said he LOVED the creed without qualification. This is the same creed that damns hyperpreterism to hell. Unless he has a pathological case of self-loathing, I doubt he loves that.
Frosty the Strawman returneth! Now with 50% more straw!
Really? Where. Point them out please.
That is the end of Samuel’s response. Samuel you are lying to yourself if you think you have moved passed your emotive outbursts so that you can respond rationally. Have someone objective read the tone (not even the substance–just the tone) of that piece and ask their opinion. You are writing like a loose canon firing.
Then, a hyperpreterist chimes in with this really weighty and thoughtful statement:
That is bad enough that I don’t even need to point it out. The name of the author of that screed is omitted to preserve him some shred of dignity.
Sam Frost is the Joe Biden of the hyperpreterist movement. Constantly stepping in it when he opens his mouth. The guy has to be the MOST full-of-himself person I have ever experienced. First he made himself a “pastor” with no legitimate ordination (http://www.scribd.com/doc/9226538/Christ-Covenant-Church-Bylaws
see page 2), then the guy claims he is “president” of RCM (ref). The guy is ALWAYS trying to be validated. Forget about hyperpreterism for a moment — just who the guy is in character alone is arrogant. The tone AND the content of his latest response to you Dee Dee showed a man not fit to be a “pastor” nor fit to be called a “scholar”. He is a little fish who couldn’t make a name for himself in the big pond of the Reformed community so instead he swims in the heretical movement of hyperpreterism & it makes him feel like a big fish.
These guys talk about people “slandering” them & “attacking” them yet when have we said anything about their person? The only REAL slander/attack comes from them — Sam calls you a lesbian housewife (real pastoral of him). Mike Bennett calls you a whore. Real “logical” of him. Jason goes around making stupid videos depicting his male opponents as female tennis players (waaahh!!! I need legal advice how to sue him in case I ever want to start my own business selling my own cheesy rap songs). Then here is Sam “above the fray” Frost making fun of my physical stature. Nope, no ad hom from these guys. They are the examples of “logic” & “exegesis” — Are you reading this Larry, Sharon, Minna, & Chuck??? Your heroes aren’t so heroic when they get away from the cheer-squad.
Samuel’s response took me aback in its overt hostile emotionalism. He has a visceral response to me that causes him to make extremely sloppy errors in comprehension. I know that he is not an unintelligent man, and that his schoolwork must have shown so as he has earned degrees for which I have seen the required coursework, and it is not easy. It seems whenever he engages me he lets his hippocampus have too much control.
I mean seriously, he actually thought I never heard that expression before. I have a difficult time believing that any Christian that has done any amount of time in debate would not know that saying. It would never even occur to me that someone wouldn’t.
Samuel, I am not saying this to brag, but please do realize that just as I recognize your hard-earned degrees, I am not starting with nothing at Whitefield. The Seminary has seen fit to take into consideration my obvious self-conducted education and has given me credits for that. I normally wouldn’t even mention that, but you seem to think I am from the proverbial theological boondocks or something.
Do you and Sam need to make custody arrangements and decide on a weekly visitation schedule as to who gets Dr. Talbot on which weeks?
If you guys cannot get this worked out, perhaps the two of you could draw straws to see who takes Dr. Gentry…I am pretty sure Dee Dee wins that battle!
I could watch Roderick every other weekend, but you have to agree to pick him up by 6:00PM
Just a joke Dee Dee. Just a joke.
I think Sam is confusing his seared conscience & having no shame in what he does with “being free from anger & animosity”. If he really thinks there is “no anger” in his last couple of post against Dee Dee then maybe he needs some real friends that instead of patting his back all the time need to point out his flaws once in a while.
I tend to agree Rod. I am not taken aback by much that goes on, but I really was by the animosity in his posts. If he doesn’t see that, there is perceptive dysmorphia going on.
I’m sorry Dee Dee, I HAVE to point this out. I will try to temper it as much as possible but it MUST be pointed out. Sam says this about our responses to his hostility:
Now be prepared, what I’m about to say is NOT a disconnected, off limits topic. Because of Sam’s constant lies & the above lie specifically, this issue MUST be brought forward.
Sam has NOT “made it in life” as well as he makes out to be. He has a long pattern of public drunkenness. I”m sorry folks but this is directly related. It has been a “hush-hush” issue within the hyperpreterist movement as if we can’t & shouldn’t talk about it but it shows not a man in control of himself but rather a man who has deep seated problems. I mean, Sam used to come on to Paltalk, a voice-chat forum, openly & admittedly drunk out of his mind, slurring his words so badly even his fellow hyperpreterists would make fun of him in private messages.
Sam even once repeatedly called my house so drunk & slurring his words that my daughter who was home alone at the time was scared & I had to come home from work.
Sam HASN’T been “making it in life”. His theological errors & life errors are intertwined. Will he now threaten to sue me? I’ll remove this post if he removes all the junk he just posted about Dee Dee. But even so, if there are any REAL friends of Sam’s out there, please help him. First by helping him realize he is not the stable, example of a “logician” he claims to be.
Again, I’m sorry to those offended by the raw nature of this post, but I’ve been around alcoholics enough to see how they try to present themselves as in control of themselves when in reality they are on the brink of disaster every moment of their lives.
Samuel never backs up his accusations. I think I will make a post listing all the unanswered questions I posed to Samuel.
Where did I ever say that Samuel was psychologically sick? I never did. That is a lie. I said that he has a visceral reaction to ME. That is not mental illness. I have a visceral reaction to Obama due to my strong feelings about abortion.
Samuel that is a lie. Back it up. Please do not make it necessary for me to make a list of my unanswered requests for documentation. I back up what I say, and if it turns out that I lack the documentation, I withdraw the assertion. Samuel does not.
As far as making it life, it is possible to have psychological or emotional issues and make it. Take Steve Jobs. He wears the same friggin’ clothes every day (not the same articles, but the same outfit), he is volatile, narcissistic, etc. Yet he is wildly successful.
I never claimed Samuel was a failure. His defensiveness is … odd.
I notice in Samuel’s emotional comment, he doesn’t deal with my calm and reasoned response in which I did not respond to him in kind. I did not reference anyone’s physical appearance; I didn’t make sexist comments; and I didn’t call someone’s friends “boyfriends,” insinuating unchastity. These guys just can’t quit.
Where is the actual rebuttal Samuel?
Right, my point is for all their constant psycho-analyzing of everyone else, we can point to REAL problems with their world, if they want to play that way. Frankly, I think another problem with Sam, as it comes through his own communication is that he is a bit resentful that you, Dee Dee, a woman, a “lowlife” in the hyperpreterist eyes is actually attending the same seminary where Sam obtained his degrees. They must feel that somehow cheapens Sam’s “scholarly” image when someone like… youuuuuu who isn’t fit to look upon Sam’s certificate dares to go to the same school as he did. Besides, only Sam should be rubbing shoulders with guys like Dr. Talbot. Who do you think you are you mere “housewife”!?! — THAT is the tone that comes through from these guys.
Hi,
This is sad.
Roderick, Sam has made it in life. He has two earned degrees and is well on his way to earning a third, degrees that are VERY difficult to earn. While its fair game to question his ethics, conduct and theological positions what isn’t fair game is to bring up personal issues that have little if anything to do with Theological Debate.
Alcoholism is a disease Roderick. Sam recognizes this and admits his disease openly. He also says that he’s been clean the last 2 years or so which makes me happy to hear.
Should Sam now have to wear a “scarlet letter” around for the rest of his life because he’s had a problem with the bottle? If that’s true then we all should be required to do the same.
Remember what Jesus said to the woman caught in adultery? He forgave her and said “go and sin no more”…….if you have truly forgiven Sam for past mistakes then that is what you as a professing Christian should do as well…….and if you haven’t then you need to otherwise your words regarding FP and anything else for that matter will be hollow and ineffective.
I’m sorry to say this Roderick but I find your statements regarding your personal opinions about whether Sam has “made it in life” wrong and without merit. Your bringing up his disease and using it to attack him is wrong as well. I believe you should apologize to that man.
God Bless,
Phil Naessens
Hi Phil, so that I don’t split my conversations between two post making it difficult to follow, I draw your attention to my comments on this post:
http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=2708
Roderick knows that I do not approve of his comment and that it crosses a boundary. I am very close though to the issue of alcoholism in my family beginning with both my parents and my brother who has served years in jail for hit and run of pedestrians while drunk. Fortunately no one was killed. I do not believe alcoholism is a disease but that doesn’t make a difference to this point. I don’t think any substance addiction is a disease, and I think those things should be handle in private with the family, church, friends, etc.
I can attest that the course work is hard. I just started, and looking at my requirements makes my head spin.
I would ask Samuel why he has not publicly disapproved of Cliff stating that we should be committed to a state mental hospital.
Like Samuel, I have been very open about some of my own issues which include difficulties with depression. Those kinds of comments keep some depressed people from seeking help because they are frightened of being labeled as “crazy.”
In any event, I will continue any discussion on the other thread so that things aren’t too split up where my views are concerned.
Off limits?
I’m sorry but this is beginning to sound like the same type of people who defended Bill Clinton.
Let’s analyze…. Sam Frost has considered himself a “bishop/elder/pastor” & while in the midst of that function he WAS GIVEN TO WINE. It IS a THEOLOGICAL MATTER. And actually by highlighting Sam’s “degrees” it makes it worse — he should have THEOLOGICALLY known better.
This is my point. I’m not even talking so much about the sin of it, but more that the man’s theology is skewed EVEN before you get to his hyperpreterism.
I’m sorry that you think we can compartmentalize our theology from who we are, but the Bible makes it clear that what comes from the heart is what is really the person & when a man can override such simple theology to justify himself, then that is WRONG.
As for forgiveness, Sam hasn’t even repented of the personal issue against my family….he doesn’t even admit doing it. Secondly, when all of this happened Sam thought it sufficient that he make amends privately between him & God & then just go on his merry way. Sort of like how Clinton & gang created MoveOn.org. What happens in REAL churches when pastors do these kind of things? They don’t get to just pick up where they left off — they are defrocked. Sam thinks he is “above the fray”.
Now, shall we get into the other requirements for a elder of which Sam disqualifies himself?
And if Sam says, “Well, I’m not a pastor anymore” — there is even MORE indictment, since in actuality he cheated his way into that office, making himself a “pastor” because he claims there was an “unsettled condition” that allowed him to claim the office without proper ordination (see here pg 2) . So, not only did the man arrogantly take the function upon himself, he soiled the office, quietly covered up the issue & YET you want to come against me?????? Excuse me?
Rod,
Do you believe FP’s are Christians?
If you believe FP’s are Christians and specifically Sam Frost is a Christian then I stand corrected……..but if you don’t then you can’t hold the world to biblical standards can you?
Please don’t even attempt to compare my public condemnation of your low blow with how folks defended Clinton…..as Christians we should be above these sort of cheap shots……
Actually Rod if this were a “real church” it would be up to the elders as to what to do with Sam…..and you’d need 2 to 3 witnessess to bring an accusation against an elder(1Timothy 5:19)
So……..do you consider Sam a Christian or not?
Phil
Phil, hyperpreterists, against everything that has ever been considered Christian, consider themselves to be Christians — the day they disclaim this, is the day I will no longer hold them to biblical standards.
It is not about personalities but about morality & ethics which hyperpreterists seem to have in short supply.
I do however thank you for your comments Phil.
P.S. I noticed you are back to calling them “Full Preterists” so a question for you Phil, do you believe they are heretics or not?
Hi,
I stopped referring to them as HP’s a while ago……..its makes conversations easier with them.
As to your question I still believe that the eschatological belief system known as Full or Hyper Preterism is a dangerous theological error and that if its not a damnable heresy in and of itself if followed to its logical conclusion leads to damnable heresies.
I don’t believe that all who adhere to FP are heretics……..that’s a case by case deal with me……
Hope that answers your question.
Phil
Yes, thanks Phil.
Hi,
Roderick, you didn’t answer my question. I didn’t ask you what FP’s consider themselves as I asked YOU what you consider them as……..Christians or not?
Phil
Thanks for asking for clarification Phil, considering I’ve said many places & many times (as Dee Dee has as well), that hyperpreterists by very definition of their beliefs; HYPERPRETERISTS ARE NOT CHRISTIANS. That is, they are no more Christian than the Arians were, or worse than Mormons or JWs. They are disconnected & outside the historic community of saints. Their belief is out of accord with pre-Roman Catholic, Roman Catholicism, Greek/Eastern Orthodox, Syrian, Protestant/Reformed, Anabaptist, & Modern Evangelical UNITED CHRISTIAN beliefs. If you consider them such, I pray that you reassess this position.
Hi Phil, I do not hold hyperpreterists to be Christians. I would like to write a bit later about the holding to certain standards thing, so I ask that you hold off on replying until I can if that is okay?
Hi,
No problem…..take your time!
Phil
Heya there I have a few minutes. I think you and I discussed this a while back, but I forget things I did five minutes ago so you likely don’t remember. I do not hold a sharp distinction in between what God requires of Christians and nonChristians. His moral law is for everyone. I don’t want to use the example above as that is a subject I will avoid, so I will speak in broad generalities. God says do not lie. Nonbeliever lies to believer. Believer has every right to expect that person to conform to the universal moral law. What that believer cannot demand or expect is any kind of church involvement. The administrative structure is different for Christians, but all men are called not to sin. Especially in things that most people think are wrong even if they are nonChristians.
Where things get grey is in areas of blasphemy. While God calls all men not to blaspheme that is a sin against Him alone, and an atheists denial of Him is a blasphemy so all conversations would be a nonstarter.
With regards to avoiding proper theological terms because it might offend the person, sometimes we treat offense as an automatic sin. It isn’t. In reminding them in our terminology that they are not brothers, the purpose isn’t to belittle; it is to show the lack of spiritual fellowship; cause them to long to part of the church; and repent. By compromising on that, it is a compromise at the very foundation of conversation.
Now what I have done in the past in longtime private conversations with Hypers, after we are very clear on our positions, is find some way to use those terms less. Their effect has been achieved. I do not think the concern about a barrier to conversation on that front with them is valid. Let me list a few ways.
I have dealt with a lot of cults and cultic beliefs. One thing they have in common is that they WANT to debate it and talk about it. Believe me, the hyper is not going to be willing to talk more just because you don’t call him one. It will only solidify his desire that this should be an available option in the Church. It is not doing that person any favours at all.
In public conversation you are not only talking to that one person, but the whole invisible readership whom you must protect from feeling “comfortable” with heresy.
And no matter what analogy I use the hypers will get ticked, but I have to use over the top examples to show what I mean.
Do we call adultery an “affair” or a “slip-up” just because the adulterer doesn’t like his sin being called what it is?
And I have to use this example but in no way am I claiming this moral turpitude on hypers, but it is a very real movement today. Do we call what an adult man does to a young boy “love” because rape is an offensive term? NAMBLA is petitioning to have all the offensive words removed.
Why do you think the homosexuals prefer “gay”? I generally refuse to use that term.
Also do you sacrifice the church to please a hyper? Their terms are an offense to the church, claiming she has been in bumbling stupid error for her entire existence. Calling things what they are shows my respect for orthodoxy, not my disrespect for nonorthodoxy.
As Dan Trotter’s wife said, she is never thinking about any hyperpreterist she doesn’t love (when accused of “hate” which is a typical cultic tactic), she said she is thinking of the church and people that she does love and wishes to protect.
We have fallen prey to terminal word sanitization. Like how I mentioned before that it is ridiculous that now the word “ignorant” is automatically a bad word?? Ignorant is not an inherent insult unless a person is looking for insults. Who isn’t ignorant on something? Some arguments ARE dumb.
I think that the spirit behind, woe to those who call evil good and good evil applies. If we allow evil doctrine to hijack good cleansed labels, I believe we violate the broad intent of that admonition from God.
It is classic psychology in reverse. All the deviants know it (and NO I am not speaking of hypers as deviants)–the homosexual marriage lobby, the ACLU lobby, the abortion lobby.
You don’t call it a baby or a human, no, that sounds to bad. Let’s use impersonal medical terms like foetus and blastocyst or hey, let’s just call it a choice. The blood of the unborn cries out from the ground for justice from God (not vigilante psychos), and we as a country spit on their mass grave by being worried that telling the truth offends people.