On a recent blog post at Jason Bradfield's "Sovereign Grace Preterism," Sam Frost attempted to discredit the position recently taken by Roderick Edwards and myself--namely, that the true historic faith has been preserved for us in the historic creeds and confessions.
By adducing statements from some of the Reformed confessions, which "damn" Chiliasm, he purposes to show that by Roderick's own standards he must condemn me, or I must condemn him--something to that effect. This is known as the "divide and conquer" ploy used by Preterists.
Of course, we mustn't forget that the Fundamental Baptists routinely "damn" those who believe in the doctrines of grace. Yet Sam would not dare allege that because of their disapproval the doctrines are invalidated.
Really, we must ask, what is the historic truth of the matter? Are these doctrines found having historical continuity throughout all ages of Christianity? If so, why would some later anathema issued by an Arminian church have any effect on the validity of the doctrines on which Sam bases his soteriology?
In his enthusiasm to combat the truth, Sam forgets that there are at least four known Millennial positions within the ranks of his camp. Does a Pre-Millennial Preterist like Duncan McKenzie get excluded from posting at Planet Preterist?
Then, too, what is the exact status of Kurt Simmons, a Bi-Millennialist? Surprisingly, Kurt is a good friend of Sam, which even he (Sam) admits. So, according to Frost, the Millennium is not a standard of fellowship.
Do we believe in the teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit? If so, we must recognize some kind historical continuity of the true faith.
Consider the doctrine of the Virgin Birth. This has been challenged repeatedly throughout Christian history. Modern liberals have concurred that it is a fable. So, if I find some perverted denial of the Virgin Birth, written in the 1970's, will I succeed in invalidating the historic and orthodox teaching? God forbid! Then how do Sam and Jason propose to do the same thing when it comes to doctrines such as the Second Coming, Resurrection, and Judgment?
According to them, it is not classic truth that matters so much as the newfangled inventions of men. The latest flavor of the week gets preference over centuries-old understanding of the Scriptures. And these folks have the nerve to complain against their Universalist "brethren."
Let us quote from Sam Frost, so that everyone can read his implicit denial of the ministry of the Spirit: "Where did the Spirit go wrong when chilasm was damned? Where did the Spirit go wrong when John the Apostle told an elder who told Papias, who told Polycarp, who told Ireneaus that chilasm was right? Did the Spirit go wrong when Augustine and Eusebius condemned chilasm? Did the Spirit go wrong when to major Confessions damned it?"
Sam's argument is that, because of minor differences, all the major points of agreement must be brushed aside. By Sam's rule, I suppose that, because of the different Millennial views within the H.P. camp, their unanimous agreement on past fulfillment will be negated. But if to do so would be absurd, then it is equally absurd to suggest that 2,000 years of orthodox agreement can be relegated to the trash-bin.
If we consider the points of difference among Christians, we must consider their points of coincidence as well. All evidence must enter into our final calculation. If this principle would apply in any worldly tribunal, then how much more among the professed people of God? But that is not their way.
It is therefore no surprise to find Sam's pupil, Jason Bradfield, also casting doubts on the operative work of the Holy Spirit. Bradfield writes: "Where is this so-called "providential protection" at in the fact that according to many, amillennialism is probably the most dominant view? Did the Holy Spirit fall asleep when amill and postmill crept in?" This kind of irreverence is typical of those who embrace heresy. However, some of us have more reverence when it comes to the ministry of the Comforter.
My answer to these gentlemen is this: If the truths of eschatology cannot be found anywhere in the history of the church, then there is no need to look for them now, nor at any future time. I think this is what Jason would call a "logical necessity."
Will these Hyper-Prets continue to cuddle up to the liberals and emergents, as they're now doing? I think so. And one day we'll catch them in a pretty "group hug" with the Universalists and covenantal creationists. This is certainly "going far." But as one of their more 'progressive' revisionists has already said: "Where I am today is not where I'll be tomorrow."
Enjoy the ride, fellas!
0 comments:
Post a Comment