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

Mr. Frost comes out of hiding, although based on this response of his I understand why he is so reclusive in rebutting my posts.

Alright. I’ll bite. I don’t know why. Paul T. recently wrote an article saying I misrepresented J. Gresham Machen. http://thereignofchrist.com/criticism-on-machens-view-of-image-of-god/

Actually Sam, what I wrote was, “Frost’s use of Machen is accurate however it is disingenuous.”   Do you understand what the term “disingenuous” means?

Well, first, let’s deal with his little paper on this charge, then we can go back to the paper I wrote to see if what he says is true.

I plan on using this to show why I don’t deal with Paul T., too much. His rah rah team, posting on his article, are equal opportunity critics, jumping on any new bandwagon that attacks Samuel Frost. After all, according to one of Paul’s fans, Kelly Birks, I am a “cult leader”. According to to another, Tom, I am a wolf in sheeps clothing. Larry Siegel does try to add some humor, but these stalwart defenders of the faith (one speaks in tongues, another is an amilllenialist, and Birks….well, we don’t know how to classsify his view – it’s immortal body at death – which Paul T. completely disagrees with and which contradicts the point Paul T. is making! Nonetheless, Birks brings up the inane charge of “doceticism” – apparently not understanding what that term means).

You got to love the fact Mr. Frost points out the contradicting views of those who have been providing comment on the blog I wrote.  Surely this must be tongue-n-cheek given. Mr. Frost supports his theological views with scholars who are all over the board.  Frost quotes, Calvin on one extreme while relying on Bultmann on the other.  Regarding Bultmann’s theology of Christ, Harold O.J. Brown explains “Bultmann’s presentation is not a doctrine about anyone or anything: it is instead an urgent appeal to human beings to understand themselves in a new way, on the basis of an encounter with an amazing story, a very interesting one, but one that never actually “happened” in an usual meaning of the word.” (Heresies, Harold O.J. Brown, Hendrickson Publishers, pg 442)

It is interesting Frost seems fine with casting aspersions against those who would comment on the blog, yet has no problems developing his theology based on those who deny the historical fact of the resurrection.  The duplicity of Frost is stunning.  Perhaps Bultmann’s self help program is what spurred Frost to riding bikes.

The article, located on Pret Blah, is called “Frost Disingenuously Represents Dr. J. Gresham Machen”. How’s that for a title? It’s a charge as to my motive. See, Paul T. wants you to believe that I deliberately set out to mislead. That’s what wolves do. That’s what cult leaders do. If I can show this to be false, Paul T. is bearing false witness, yet again. This is the reason I don’t read anyone who associates with this gang. They can’t be taken seriously.

Yes, Sam, we’ve documented that you regularly misquote your sources that is what wolves do.  We all know the audience you are writing to won’t look up the quotes you provide and ask you the tough questions that you refuse to answer.   However, you are held accountable here, are you surprised?

First off, Machen clearly wrote that the “image of God” is the soul of Man. Paul T. even says I got it right here. If one is reading my article on Clark, who denies that Man is a combination of “soul + body”, Clark more or less says the same thing (Clark and Machen were very good friends). Now, here is where I am supposedly misrepresenting Machen: Paul T. wrote, “Frost, after pointing out that Dr. Machen held to an intermediate state, transitions from Machen’s view straight into the concept of glorification while never explaining the condition required for glorification to be complete as argued by Machaen (sic).” Now, this is strange, since I assume that people know who Machen was, and I asked the readers to google his name. I also include the title of Machen’s book, with a page number. Gee, what I bad way to cover up my motives! Anyways, Paul T. does quote me as saying that Machen was a defender of the Westminster Confession, which, argues against Dr. Birks’ view, who supports Paul T.! Now, anyone that has read the WCF would know that “glorification” involves the body that is in the casket. Disingenuous? How could it be? The point I was obviously making is that there is an inconsistency on the part of Machen.

So it wasn’t deception that caused Sam Frost to paint the picture as though Dr. Machen advocated a position the “whole” person excluded the body of the individual?  You “assume” your reader will understand that Dr. Machen clearly explains the definition of the whole human being is in body?  What you did is redefine the whole human being around your less than Christian view while only pointing out Dr. Machen’s definition of the “image of God” in man, which “seemingly” supports your heresy.

The reason, for the billionth and one time, is to show inconsistency, and to show that we can utilize SOME of what church history provides in terms of theology. Paul T. falls into this very inconsistency on his own. I now demonstrate: Paul T. quotes me as saying that in Machen’s view, the resurrection/reunion of the body “adds very little” to perfect holiness for the believer. I did say it “adds”. Just “very little.” I say this because the WCF says that upon death we are made in perfect holiness and worship God. Paul T. write that this: “When Frost writes, “Someone might want to tell our detractors that one does not need a “new body” in order to glorifiy God, be made perfect in holiness, or worship God.”, he is just plain wrong!” Ahem. Paul T. never quotes from the WCF. I did. Let’s quote it again, shall we? “The bodies of men, after death, return to dust, and see corruption:[1] but their souls, which neither die nor sleep, having an immortal subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them:[2] the souls of the righteous, being then made perfect in holiness, are received into the highest heavens, where they behold the face of God, in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies” (32.1). Now, where am I being disingenuous? Did Paul T. fail to see “full redemption of their bodies” there? As a cult leader, I should have mislead my readers and left that clause out! The fact is, Paul T. says that it is wrong to say we are in “perfect holiness” without a body according to the WCF. Paul T. may actually want to read that Confession again. The SOULS are “made perfect in holiness” while they WAIT for the redemption of their bodies. PERFECT HOLINESS without a PHYSICAL BODY. Paul T. denies this, I affirm it.

That is the point Mr. Frost, the Christian position is not inconsistent.  Your redefinition of the whole human being along Gnostic lines so that the body is excluded is not the Christian position. Your perspective redefines life after death to the afterlife of the Pagan.  You demonstrated your disingenuousness by not pointing out Dr. Machen did not define the whole Person as exclusive of their body, which would be why the body needs be glorified.

My point being, of course, that adding physical bodies to an already perfect soul (which is the image of God according to Machen) would be superfluous. It “adds very little.” Paul T. even says so: “While Machen discounts the “body” as a component part of man bearing the image of God, the fact is he understands the Christian view of the “man” is in “body”, which is why Dr. Machen understanding of a fully redeemed life must necessarily include a physical resurrected body.” See that? Machen “discounts” the “body component”. Man is in a body. This was Clark’s view. Man, the WHOLE MAN, is “in” a body. Man is not defined by “body” (Clark was explicit). Now, if soul is the whole man, and the whole man is made perfect in holiness (WCF) without the body, what’s the point of glorifying the body? The point is not to glorify Man. The point is to glorify Man’s body. Why? This is where “glorification” takes on another purpose. It’s purpose is rooted in the eschatological glorification of all things, all of creation at the end of history. Someone might want to tell Paul T. that Birks does not agree with him on the “body glorification” issue.

Frost once again demonstrates his intellectual dishonesty.  In Frost’s muddled thinking he has confused Dr. Machen’s definition of what the image of God is in man with the definition of the whole person. No one is adding the body to man, that is, unless you want to count God who made man with a body. The whole man is soul + Body. This is the point, the “soul” is not the whole man, the “whole” man is inclusive of the body.  People who are alive, as Dr. Machen points out, are “in” body.  No one is suggesting that man as the image of God is defined by the body, but that the body is part of the being that makes up the man which necessarily includes redemption as pointed out by the Westminster divines in the Larger Catechism question # 86. Here is the cutting difference between “being” Reformed and “mimicking” Reformed. Redemption is the “whole” man in Reformed theology. That is why they would hold that Hyperpreterism is “Gnostic like” in that they see the body only as a “kind” of unnecessary “bondage” to the true man which is only the image and not the body. But not so of Reformed thought. The Divines wrote:

Q. 86. What is the communion in glory with Christ which the members of the invisible church enjoy immediately after death?

A. The communion in glory with Christ which the members of the invisible church enjoy immediately after death, is, in that their souls are then made perfect in holiness, and received into the highest heavens, where they behold the face of God in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies, which even in death continue united to Christ, and rest in their graves as in their beds, till at the last day they be again united to their souls. Whereas the souls of the wicked are at their death cast into hell, where they remain in torments and utter darkness, and their bodies kept in their graves, as in their prisons, till the resurrection and judgment of the great day.

The question which now needs to be asked is, “why do the Westminster Divines recognize God’s plan of redemption is not truly complete until the body of the whole person is redeemed?”  According to the Westminster Divines the body of the believer even in death is still united to Christ, which is why the body as a part of the whole person is ultimately redeemed from the grave. This is the consistency of the Reformers, Adams dies soul and body, Christ incarnates Son of God/soul and body, dies bodily on the cross to redeem man, and then when men are redeemed it is the “whole man” to the “whole Christ” that is restored. The difference is that Mr. Frost has developed a “Platonic” view of man, and this view is incompatible with God’s plan of redemption as defined by the Westminster Divines!  So, what is Frost’s view if it is not Reformed? Let me guess, it is likely along the lines of Gnostic concepts.

See, in our view, the glorification of the body is not needed. When we ask why, after perfect holiness has already been achieved, the body in the casket is needed, we end up with a faulty exegesis. But, I didn’t cover that aspect in my article. That’s coming later in my installments with Clark.

Why does the body need be glorified?  What is the Christian definition of the whole person according to Dr. Machen? According to Dr. Machen the Christian perspective is, if the body is not glorified, then the whole man is not glorified and full redemption has not been had, simple consistent logic Mr. Frost.

However, we understand your definition of the man is something less than the whole person taking the Gnostic view that the body is dispensable, the prison of the soul.  This is the same view the Greeks held. N.T. Wright has correctly pointed out that, “Cicero is quite clear and completely in the mainstream of Greco-roman thought: the body is the prison-house.  A necessary on for the moment; but nobody in their right mind, having got rid of it, (the body) would want it (the body) or something like it, (the body) back again. (The Resurrection of the Son of Man, N.T. Wright, Fortress Press, pg 60)  You Mr. Frost like the Pagan Greeks believe the body is “like” a prison of the soul and at death the soul is then freed to move on. Are you historically a Gnostic? I have never said that you are, I have just pointed out just how Gnostic “like” your theology is and that is what distinguishes you from the Reformers.

The point which Mr. Frost minimizes due to his Gnostic leanings is that the body of the believer as part of the whole “person” even in death is still united to Christ and therefore experiences redemption being freed from the bondage of the grave on that great and glorious future day. The Reformers held to Pauline soteriology which directly affected his view of the future bodily resurrection in Romans 8:18-25:

For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. [Why does the creation, that which is physical wait for only a ‘spiritual manifestation’?] For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God (Creation will also receive a new corpus just as believers, a corruption that is past, ended, apparently currently not in existence). For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit (The Reformed theological view is that in salvation man has the “spirit” of the firstfruits” but the adoption of the physical body, the completion has not yet come), even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption (note this adoption is distinguished from the other use of the term adoption which is modified by the term “spirit” verse the physical to be pointed not next), the redemption of our body (physical, if not physical, this texts is irrational and contradictory. Paul is contrasting the two (1) spiritual adoption currently possessed by believers, verse an actual bodily resurrection the full redemption of the “whole man.” Considering this point, can you see why “Gnostic type theories like Mr. Frost’s are rejected as heretical?). For we were saved in this hope (a future redemption of the “whole man”), but hope that is seen (if all we currently possess is it, spiritual, it is not hope to the “living.”) is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees (the future resurrection and redemption of the whole man)? But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with perseverance (the future resurrection of the body).

As you can see, this is a great contrast between Mr. Frost’s theology, and the theology of the Reformers, and especially that of Dr. Machen. Secondly, if we do not appeal to 2000+ years of history and the interpretation and writing of the Church, why do you spend so much time trying to validate your views by doing the very thing you want to deny to those of us who see the importance of History, not above the Scripture, but history that is essential to the elements of Scripture which is itself a historical document? Listen Sam, every time I read you over at Reign of Blah Blah, you just continue to demonstrate how disingenuous you are in handling those who otherwise oppose your view and call you heretic. Just remember this, the next time you quote a Reformer, just recite this phrase “heretic, heretic, heretic” because that is what they would be saying if they were alive to respond to you. Not hard to minimize a dead man’s theology and twist it to make it appear as if he would have just thought it through, he would have agreed with you. Dr. Machen was Brilliant! A true New Testament Scholar! Do you really believe that he did not consider the eschatological ramifications? You are no Dr. Machen! Further, you never will equal the stature of that man’s understanding or integrity.  Next time write out Dr. Machen’s complete view, like a good scholar would do, then contrast it with yours, rather than trying to make out like it is paralleling your thinking, just not as well thought out as you would have liked him to be.   

BTW, Sam please do not insert terms you frankly have not demonstrated the capability to support.  Remember Dr. Licona’s assessment of the “exegesis” in your book, an assessment he termed, as, you “forced”, aka employed eisegesis.

Now, back to this “discount” of the body. Paul T. ever anxious to tie us into the Greeks and Gnosticism (silly charges), equates my view with Plato. Paul T., quoting Hoekema, wrote, “Plato, for example, advance the view that the body and soul are to be thought of as two distinct substances: the thinking soul, which is divine, and the body. Since the body is composed of the inferior substance called matter, it is of lower value than the soul. At death the body simple disintegrates, but the rational soul (or nous) returns to “the heavens” if its course of action has been just and honorable, and continues to exist forever.” Clark, Machen, Evans, Nash and a few others posit a “two substance” view. If the soul is a substance, and the body is not a soul, then we have two substances. Clark and Machen argued against the “combination” view that defined Man as soul + body. I argue against that view as well. I am in good membership! Now Paul T. wants to imply that we are Gnostics, devaluing our body (he might want to see my pictures of me on my bike, with my nice shaved, muscular legs – since I exercise on a regular basis). Now, we believe that the body disintegrates, but so does Birks (or at least the Birks a few months ago – I don’t know what his view is today, it could have changed from the pressure). Nonetheless, that’s our view, it happens to agree with Plato, but Plato never read Paul, and never believed in his heart that “Jesus is Lord” and that “God raised him from the dead”. This would put me an Plato in two different camps. If Paul T. uses Aristotle’s law of contradiction (which he does), does this make Paul T. an Aristoteleon? According to Paul T., it would!

“Ever anxious”?  ROFL, you finally confess holding to Platonic anthropology, something I’ve been repeatedly pointing out to the reading public.  However, I must point out Mr. Frost, you are discounting the body which is why you claim it is left in the grave.  Again, the point cannot be lost on your statement. What is different about your plan of redemption from that described by the Westminster Divines and those men you claim you are in close association with on the matter?  Why would they all claim your view is heresy? 

Mr. Frost, you are not in the company you claim. All those men you cited claim, “We Christians expect, do we not, the resurrection of the body; we look for a life of man, in the body, that shall have no end.” Mr. Frost your entire premise is to claim the body never comes back to life, man “exists” in the afterlife in the “Body” of Christ.  Who among the Reformers ever taught such an insidious position? You deny the life of man in body after death, ergo the Gnostic charge is anything but “silly”.   N.T. Wright documents the view you advocate is derived from Gnostic thought. 

“An alternative way of dealing with the resurrection while claiming continuity with early Christian tradition was to reinterpret ‘resurrection’ language so that it now denoted (as it had never done before, in Judaism, paganism or early Christianity) a ‘spiritual’ resurrection in the present leading to a ‘resurrection’ of the spirit or soul in the future.  This is the line taken by the Epistle to Rheginose, also known as the Treatise on Resurrection, the only book in the Nag Hammadi collection to deal directly with our present questions” (The Resurrection of the Son of Man, N.T. Wright, Fortress Press, pg. 538-539)  Sam, you can complain N. T. Wright as being “silly” but that isn’t a very effective way of demonstrating you are not advocating a Gnostic concepts.

Mr. Frost, something tells me Dr. Clark would not have been very impressed by this response.  BTW, I trust you will put more that 30 minutes into your follow-up, the 30 minuets are believable, but as you say, “very disappointing.”