DEBATE III / TOPIC IV / RESPONSE TO REBUTTAL (c.)
The Personal, Bodily, Second
Coming Christ
Response to Rebuttal
Tim
Warner 01-29-04
Copyright © The Last Trumpet —
The point of my paper was really rather simple, despite
Frost’s muddying the waters with many unrelated comments. At Jesus’ ascension,
the angels promised that “This same
Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as
you saw Him go into heaven.” That’s pretty straightforward. Frost went on
and on about Jesus’ having hairy arms, a big nose, and occupying space
“floating” in heaven in my theology. But, such mockery of the things of God proves
nothing except that Frost is unwilling to believe what the Bible plainly says.
He seeks to dodge the problem by claiming that the theologically important
point is that Jesus took on human nature, rather than human flesh. Frost writes, “Jesus took upon himself “human nature” (natura). He was not a human person.
The Incarnation of the Logos (Word)
Frost has failed to take into account that there was no
“Jesus,” is no “Jesus,” and will be no living “Jesus” without His physical
flesh received from Mary at His incarnation. While the Logos existed as a
divine member of the Trinity prior to the incarnation, the “incarnation” itself
brought together both the divine nature and the human nature in one person. The
human nature of Jesus inherently includes human flesh. The word “incarnation”
is derived from the Latin, and means “in flesh.” The name “Jesus” is NOT
synonymous with the title “the Logos.” “Jesus” is NOT merely a spirit or divine
person. He is a whole person, the
God-man. “Jesus” is the personal name of
the WHOLE person born from the womb of Mary – a flesh and blood person, “God manifested in the flesh.” “And she will bring forth a Son, and you
shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins”
(Matt.
The Excarnation of Jesus Christ
(according to Frost)
Frost would have you believe that the incarnation of
Christ was a temporary state. Yet, the resurrected Jesus Christ said of
Himself, “I am He who lives, and was
dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore” (
Slight
of Hand
In his attempt to dodge the problem in Acts 1, Frost has
subtly switched “this same Jesus” for “this same Logos.” Frost writes, “‘This same Jesus’
it says. I agree wholeheartedly. This same Jesus, the Logos, the Human and
Divine Natures, appeared again ‘a second time’ in A.D. 70. You mean, ‘the same hairs and arms that he
had.’ I don’t see that spelled out in
the text, Tim. How you can get that from
the word ‘same’ is beyond me.” It is only “beyond you,” Sam, because you
refuse to see, and actively try to obscure the text so others will not see as
well. Since Sam is having difficulty “seeing” what is in plain sight in the
text, I’ll try to explain as simply as I can – for him – since I am sure that
the rest of you probably see it clearly already. As stated above, “Jesus” is a
reference to the man, not to
some divine essence or spirit. And a “man” is not a “man” without a body.
Therefore, “this same Jesus” refers
to the man born from the womb of Mary. This man, not some mystical fog, is whom
the angels said would come again.
But, there’s more. The angels did not merely say “this same Jesus will come again.” Nor
did they say “this same Jesus will come
again in like manner.” Nor did they
say, “this same
Jesus will come again in like manner as He went into heaven.” If any of
these were what the angels said, then Frost might have a toothpick to stand on
when he tries to equate “in like manner” with merely the invisible force (power
of God) that carried Jesus up. The problem is, the phrase, “in like manner”
refers, not to the means of defying gravity (“the power of God”) that carried
Jesus up. It refers to what the disciples SAW. They did not see an invisible
force. Here is what the angels actually said: “this same Jesus … will come again in like manner as you saw
Him go into heaven.” The words, “in
like manner” refer exclusively to the APPEARANCE
of Christ’s ascension that the disciples OBSERVED.
The promise is that his second coming will be the same in appearance as His
ascension. This begs the question, what did the disciples actually observe?
That is answered explicitly in the text. “After
he said this, he was taken up before
their very eyes, and a cloud hid
him from their sight. They were
looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men
dressed in white stood beside them” (Acts 1:9-10 NIV). It is all very
simple and straightforward provided we do not seek to “wrest the Scriptures.”
They SAW “this same Jesus,” who was born of the virgin
Mary, ascend into the sky until He was obscured from their sight by a cloud.
And, “this same Jesus,” whom they watched ascend, will come again “in like
manner” as they “saw” Him ascend. To deny this is to flatly deny the promise of
God. It is not a matter of “interpretation.” It is a matter of faith vs.
unbelief.
Frost writes, “‘In
the same manner’ (hon tropon
– Greek) is found in the context of passive verbs. Passive verbs in Greek, as in English, means
the subject of the verb is being acted upon and not producing the action. Jesus was “taken up” and a “cloud” received
him. These are passives. What took Jesus up? In what manner was Jesus taken? Obviously, He ascended by the power of
God. So, in like manner he shall return
by the power of God. That’s all these
verses assert.” No, Sam, I’m afraid that is NOT at all what these verses
assert. There is nothing said about the “power of God” here. Nor is there
anything about “cause.” What caused Jesus to defy gravity was of no real
concern to the disciples. It is about “manner.” You are reading ideas into the
text.
Frost attempts to use the passive voice to imply that the
real import here is an invisible power, working against gravity. But, as stated
above, “in like manner” refers to something the disciples saw. The passive
voice is expected in such a narrative, because the disciples (and Luke) did not
observe the cause of Jesus’ defying gravity. The text simply leaves the question
of whether Jesus ascended of His own power, or was acted upon by the power of
the Father or Holy Spirit, unaddressed. From the disciples’ perspective, Jesus
“was taken” up into the sky. The cause
is not named. Had Luke used the active voice, He would be implying that Jesus
was performing the action of the verb on another object. Had he used the middle
voice, he would be saying that Jesus caused Himself to ascend. But, the
disciples could not have known this from their observations. Therefore, the
only proper way to describe the ascension by eyewitnesses would be in the
passive voice. This in no way implies that “in like manner” refers to the force
that carried Jesus upward. In the text, it refers ONLY to what the disciples
actually saw. In whatever “manner” they observed His ascending into heaven He
will come again in precisely the same observable manner. That means visibly
through the clouds of water vapor, because those are the details (manner) that
the disciples observed.
“Resurrected”
Christ vs. “Apparition” of the Christ - Ghost
Frost continues to deny the plain statements of this
passage: “This is not a prooftext to demonstrate the “visible, bodily” second
coming of Christ. It is not plain at all
that everyone could “see” Jesus. I have
read it several times that if a non-disciple was looking at the disciples on
the mount, they would have seen a bunch of men looking
at nothing. The Greek interchange of the
verb for “see” here can most certainly imply that they were seeing an
appearance of the Resurrected Christ, as they had before.” So, now Frost
resorts to an “apparition” of Christ ascending into heaven. He read this
several times? Is he kidding? What is the basis for this assertion? Certainbly not the Bible! Apparently, Frost thinks Jesus discarded
His resurrected body sometime between His resurrection and ascension. Taking
this line of reasoning (or perhaps “denial” is a better term), we must ask,
what was the purpose of His proving to the disciples that He had risen from the
grave in the flesh? Why did He take great pains to prove to them that He was
not a “ghost?” Why eat in their presence? Why show them his hairy hands and
bony feet, with the scars from the nails? Why invite Thomas to “reach hither thy finger, and behold my
[hairy] hands. And reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side, and be
not faithless but believing?”
The bodily resurrection of Christ is an embarrassment to
preterists, like Frost. They cannot openly deny it, because that would
instantly bring the charge of “heresy.” Yet, they cannot maintain that Jesus
continued in His resurrected state after proving to the disciples that He was
still “flesh and bone” because that means He ascended bodily into heaven, and
sits at the right hand of the Father, and will come again “in like manner,”
something incompatible with their mythical, imaginary “coming” in AD70!
Mysticism
in Historical Narrative
Next, Frost attempts to give the “clouds” a mystical
interpretation, by claiming that this is verbal “imagery” in order to equate
Jesus’ ascension to Daniel’s prophecy in Dan. 7. Frost writes, “The imagery here, as many scholars are
suggesting, is Luke pointing to Daniel 7.
There, “the son of man” comes “with the clouds of heaven” to the Ancient
of Days and receives all dominion, power and glory. It has long been asserted in the church that
Daniel is seeing the Ascension of Christ.
The “coming on the clouds” is not from the Father to the earth, but from
the earth to the Father (the Ancient of Days).
Thus, Luke’s “clouds” are the heavenly “clouds” of Daniel, receiving
from the “world below” and ushering him in to the “world above” from where is
he from (John 17).”
Can you see what Frost and the “many scholars,” whom he
says agree with him, are doing? It is not enough that they take prophecy in a
mystical fashion. Now he is asserting that Luke’s historical narrative is
something not observable to the eye, but is mystical. That is, when Luke
recorded that they “SAW” Jesus ascend into the sky until a “cloud” obscured Him
from their sight, he was not reporting what actually happened, but was seeking
to portray a kind of “imagery” so that you would interpret his words with a
mystical meaning, and allegedly make the connection to the mystical clouds in
Daniel 7. In making this historical narrative “mystical,”
Frost has crossed the line from dangerous to deadly interpretation of
Scripture. This is precisely the methodology of the early Gnostics. I
could cite many examples from Irenaeus to show their
mystical handling of historical narratives in Scripture. This is beyond
“slippery slope” stuff. This is “over the cliff” stuff.
I do not deny that there is an apparent linkage to Daniel
7. Nor am I denying that this whole experience and promise of the angels was
meant to remind them of Daniel 7 and other OT passages that prophesy the second
coming of Christ. But the direct linkage is not with his ascension, but with
His promised coming again “in like manner.” Daniel 7 says that the “Son of Man”
comes with the “clouds of heaven” and is given a Kingdom. The narrative text in
Acts 1 will only permit a “cloud” of water vapor, because this is the only
interpretation of “cloud” that explains how He was obscured from their sight.
The point of the clouds being mentioned is that this is what they saw, Jesus
ascending up into the sky until He was obscured by a cloud. And the angels’
promise that Jesus will come again “in
like manner as you saw Him go” implies that He would come again through the
same kind of clouds that obscured Jesus from their sight at His ascension!
Certainly, Daniel 7 has a prophetic connection to the promise. But, Frost has
it exactly backwards. He first assumes that the “clouds” in that prophecy are
not literal clouds of water vapor, but something mystical. But, when he takes
Daniel 7 in a mystical fashion, and makes the obvious connection to this
passage, he is forced to turn a historical narrative into something mystical.
So then, not only can we not trust prophecy to be understood at face value, but
now we cannot even trust a historical narrative to be properly understood at
face value. If that methodology is acceptable to Frost, there is no limit to
what one can overturn in Scripture, including, the “virgin birth,” the incarnation
of the Word, et. al.
Mysticism has won over orthodox Christianity!
Frost’s assumption, that Daniel 7 is mystical, is not
supported from the text. Frost wrote, “The
“coming on the clouds” is not from the Father to the earth, but from the earth
to the Father (the Ancient of Days).” But, once again, Frost has missed the
bus. It is true that Dan.
Frost’s interpretation, that Christ receives the Kingdom
upon His ascension, is flatly contradicted by Hebrews. “But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins,
he sat down at the right hand of God. Since
that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool,” (Heb
Several second coming passages refer to the presence of “clouds,”
(Dan.
Miscellaneous
Points
Frost brought up a plethora of points that have little
bearing on my opening argument. Some of these were dealt with in the last round
of the debate. It is simply not possible for me to address every point without
writing many more pages than you are probably not
willing to read. But, there are a couple of points that I believe must be
mentioned.
1. Frost
wrote, “Human nature, which Our Lord took
upon himself, also involved taking on ‘flesh.’
But, according to Paul, ‘we no longer regard Messiah according to the
flesh.’” This is a gross misrepresentation of Paul’s point, which is clear
from the context, but not from Frost’s snipped excerpt. Frost would have you
think that this verse means Christ Himself no longer possesses His body of
flesh shown to His disciples the day of His resurrection. But that is not what
Paul was speaking about.
2 Cor
14 For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus:
that if One died for all, then all died;
15 and
He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but
for Him who died for them and rose again.
16
Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we
have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer.
17
Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed
away; behold, all things have become new.
(NKJ)
Paul’s point is that the bond of unity between Christians
and Christ is such that surpasses mere human relationships. Since Christ died
on our behalf, our lives are no longer our own. To “know … according to the flesh” means to have a normal human
relationship. Those who are “in Christ” should not view their relationship with
Christ as merely a human one, as when we “know” a friend, etc. Rather, this
relationship far surpasses human relationships. Since Christ died in our stead,
our lives now belong to Him. Therefore, Christians “should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them
and rose again.” Paul then says
that, as Christians, we no longer regard our relationships with the brethren as
“according to the flesh.” He then said
that once we knew Christ “according to
the flesh” but no more. His point is NOT that Christ no longer possesses
His flesh body that came out of the tomb, but rather, once we are saved, our relationship with Christ is much more than merely
a human kind of relationship. If Paul meant that Christ no longer possesses His
body of flesh, then the sentence immediately before indicates that Christians
also no longer have bodies!
2. Frost
wrote, “Salvation could not accomplished through earthly, fleshly means. Salvation must be accomplished solely ‘from
above.’ Jesus is from heaven, he came to
earth, he ascended back to heaven, and accomplishes
salvation. From ‘beginning to end’
salvation was removed from the sphere of Fallen Man and accomplished through
the ‘heavenly man’ as Paul called him.” Contrary to Frost’s mystical
gospel, the Bible is abundantly clear that our salvation was purchased by the
physical sufferings of Christ, through His blood and broken body. I can cite
many passages, but the following will suffice.
“who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having
died to sins, might live for righteousness-- by whose stripes you were healed”
(1 Pet 2:24 NKJ). The whole point of communion is to remember Christ’s “body, broken for you.” Contrary to
Frost’s above statement, our salvation was most definitely accomplished through
“fleshly means.” It was through the literal flesh and blood of Christ being
offered as the atoning sacrifice for our sins that our salvation was provided.
Without the offering of this human “flesh,” we cannot be saved.
3. Frost
wrote, “Jesus is the “firstborn out of the dead.” Which “birth”? Mary? Or Resurrection? Clearly, as Man, Jesus was “born” out of the dead
(the realm held in power by Satan and the Death – Hebrews 2.9). Are believers not also “made alive” and
“born” from the “power of the Death” like Jesus? Paul emphatically states this in Romans
6. We have died in the likeness of His Death, and also shall be made alive in
the likeness of his resurrection. Now,
did the Roman Christian really die when they accepted Christ? In what sense did they die in the likeness of
Christ’s death? Physically? So also, in what sense were they being made
alive by the Spirit in the likeness of Christ’s resurrection? Physically? The parallel does not work in the traditional
view because they view Jesus’ resurrection merely in terms of “flesh” and from
a “this world” perspective. In short,
the birth Jesus bore “out of the dead”, of which he was the “first”, is also
the same birth he gives to those ‘dead in sins’. We are the “Church of the firstborn.” Tim requires physical death, then some
intermediate time before resurrection, then physical re-birth, again. Therefore, we are “born again” spiritually,
die physically, born again-again physically!
How can this nonsense be?” It
is not “nonsense.” It is precisely what the Bible teaches. Paul frequently used
death and resurrection as a metaphor, as in the above passage. But this does
not negate real physical death and resurrection.
4. Frost
writes, “It is refreshing in the
Preterist view to realize that I don’t have to physically die in order to enjoy
the presence of God dwelling in the ‘one body’ (the ‘body of Christ’). I don’t have to wait anymore in order to have
full communion with God as directed by the Scriptures. I don’t have to wait anymore to have full
access to the Holy of Holies. The Holy
of Holies, Jesus Christ, has descended to the world through the Spirit and
“dwells” in the Church: he is our God, and we are his people, and he shall
dwell with us forever and ever.”
What Frost is actually telling you is that you already have all that
Scripture promises right now as you live in that decaying aging body of flesh.
There is no basis for a future “hope.” What you have now is all you get. This
present world, where sin abounds, and the guilty persecute the innocent, is all
there will ever be. Preterism demolishes “hope,” because it takes away the
object of our hope. Paul wrote, “For we
were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one
still hope for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly
wait for it with perseverance” (Rom.
5. Frost
also mentioned briefly the “soon” passages of Scripture. Space does not permit
me to address this here. At the bottom of the index page are links to articles
I have written on this topic. Similar language was used in the Old Testament of
events that were hundreds or thousands of years in the future as well. And
Peter, in 2 Pet. 2, explains how such language is to be properly understood.
6. Frost
briefly mentioned the first part of my opening argument, which was a word study
on the Greek word “parousia.” He denied that this Greek word actually required
Jesus’ personal presence. Yet, as I proved by my examination of every single
case where the word is used apart from Christ’s second coming, there are no
exceptions in Scripture. Frost says there are exceptions, but did not provide a
single example. I guess you are supposed to just accept his word on that.
Orthodoxy
vs. Heresy
Frost takes offense at my use of the term “heresy” to
describe some of the points he affirms. He writes, “Tim calls this ‘heresy.’ He
calls me a ‘heretic’ and one who is ‘outside Christianity.’ I don’t know how telling folks about the
Eternal Son of God who became Man and took upon Himself Human Nature in order
to die as our substitution and be raised on the Third Day according to the
Scriptures so that all those who drink freely of the living waters located in
the New Jerusalem Community of God’s Holy People, having been made acceptable
to God through Christ, by the Spirit, blessed Trinity, is heresy, but Tim says
it is. It’s amazing.” Paul wrote that we are not “ignorant of [Satan’s] devices” (2 Cor.
Paul stated that anyone coming to us with another Gospel
than what He preached should be considered “anathema” (Gal. 1). Frost’s mystical
gospel, that is allegedly connected to the destruction of
Paul wrote of Hymenaeus and Philetus who taught that the “resurrection was past.” He said this would “overthrow the faith of some.” (2 Tim. 2:17-18).
Peter wrote in the closing verses of his second epistle
that those who twist Paul’s eschatological passages do so “to their own destruction.” And he warns his readers to be careful
or they too may “fall from your own
steadfastness.” All this was stated in the context of those who scoff at
the idea of a real second coming of Christ, and who do not comprehend the
reasons for the delay, which Peter explained in this chapter.
Should Frost take offense with my use of the word “heresy?”
Perhaps he is justified in doing so. I probably would be offended if someone spoke
publicly about me this way. But for me, warning of the danger of such heresies
demands strong language, and drawing clear distinctions between orthodoxy and
heresy. I do not use language as strong as Paul’s. Yet strong language is
necessitated because Frost attempts to portray his preterism as being within
the realm of “orthodoxy.” He claims to hold to Reformed theology on his church
website. Nonsense! The Reformers affirmed the creeds of Christianity, which
outline the minimum doctrines that define what Christianity is. Frost’s views
are in direct opposition to the statements of Jesus, the Apostles, the early orthodox Church Fathers, the creeds, and the Reformers. All
of these fully embraced futurism and the resurrection of the body.
To highlight the contrast between preterism and orthodox
Christianity, I have copied below the earliest known creeds of Christianity. Frost
agrees with none of them. I have highlighted the things Frost has openly
opposed in red.
Nicene Creed (AD325)
We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and
earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally
begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not
made, of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down
from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was
buried.
On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures;
he
ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again
in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from
the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken
through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one
baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the
resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
Apostles’ Creed
(AD215)
I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.
And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the
Holy Ghost,
born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified,
dead, and buried;
he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead;
he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic
Church; the communion of saints;
the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life
everlasting. AMEN.
Irenaeus’ Statement of the Universal Christian Faith (AD165)
“The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the
ends of the earth,
has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She
believes]
in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the
sea, and all things that are in them;
and in
one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation;
and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the
dispensations of God,
and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection
from the dead,
and the
ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our
Lord,
and His [future]
manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father “to gather all things in one,”
and to raise up anew all flesh of the
whole human race, in
order that to Christ Jesus,
our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible
Father,
“every
knee should bow, of things in heaven,, and things in earth, and things under
the earth,
and that every tongue should confess” to Him, and that He should execute
just judgment towards all;
that
He may send “spiritual wickednesses,” and the angels
who transgressed and became apostates,
together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men,
into everlasting fire;
but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the
righteous, and holy,
and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His
love,
some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the
date of] their repentance,
and may surround them with everlasting glory.”
Irenaeus immediately followed this creed
with the claim that it was the universal (catholic) Faith of all the churches,
from
Frost has attempted to portray
himself and his fellow preterists as “orthodox” Christians. Yet, the real “orthodox”
Christians, who received their traditions from the Apostles and their disciples,
used much stronger language than I have to describe the very things Frost
espouses! For example, Polycarp, John’s disciple, wrote of those who denied a
future bodily resurrection, that they are “the
firstborn of Satan” (Polycarp, Epistle to the Philippians, VII). Justin
wrote that those who claim to be “Christians” but deny the resurrection of the
flesh are “godless, impious heretics,”
who “teach doctrines that are in every
way blasphemous, atheistical, and foolish.” They “blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God
of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say there is no resurrection of the dead, …
do not imagine that they are Christians,” (Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, 80). And again in his work on the Resurrection, Justin
describes these so-called “Christians” as “ignorant,
professing as they do in word that they are believers, yet by their works
proving themselves to be unbelieving, even more unbelieving than the
unbelievers” (Justin, Frag on the Resurrection, V).
Do I need to go on quoting Irenaeus, who was the
chief opponent of the early “Christian mystics?” I think a brief excerpt from Tertullian reflects precisely the situation we see here. Of
the early mystics who denied the resurrection of the flesh, Tertullian
wrote, “Happily, however, He who suffered
‘will come again from heaven,’ and by
all shall He be seen, who rose again from the dead. They too who crucified
Him shall see and acknowledge Him; that is to say, His very flesh, against which they spent their fury, and without which
it would be impossible for Himself either to exist or to be seen; so that
they must blush with shame who affirm that His flesh sits in heaven void of sensation,
like a sheath only, Christ being withdrawn from it; as well as those who (maintain) that His flesh and
soul are just the same thing, or else that His soul is all that exists, but
that His flesh no longer lives” (Tertullian,
On the Flesh of Christ, 24).
Finally, Tertullian
described Frost’s and his fellow preterists’ tactics to a tee. “Now this consideration of the phrase in
question [“the resurrection of the dead”], and its signification — besides maintaining, of course, the true
meaning of the important words — must needs contribute to this further result,
that whatever obscurity our adversaries throw over the subject under the pretense
of figurative and allegorical language, the truth will stand out in clearer
light, and out of uncertainties certain and definite rules will be prescribed.
For some, when they have alighted on a very usual form of prophetic statement,
generally expressed in figure and allegory, though not always, distort
into some imaginary sense even the most clearly described doctrine of the resurrection
of the dead, alleging that even ‘death’ itself must be understood in a
spiritual sense. They say that which is commonly supposed to be death is not
really so, — namely, the separation of body and soul: it is rather the
ignorance of God, by reason of which man is dead to God, and is not less buried
in error than he would be in the grave. Wherefore that also must be held to be
the resurrection, when a man is reanimated by access to the truth, and having
dispersed the death of ignorance, and being endowed with new life by God, has
burst forth from the sepulcher of the old man, even as the Lord likened the
scribes and Pharisees to “whited sepulchers.” Whence it follows that they who have by faith attained to the
resurrection, are with the Lord
after they have once put Him on in their baptism. By such subtlety, then, even in conversation have they often been in
the habit of misleading our brethren, as
if they held a resurrection of the dead as
well as we. Woe, say they, to him who has
not risen in the present body; for they
fear that they might alarm their hearers if they at once denied the resurrection.
Secretly,
however, in their minds they think this: Woe betide the simpleton who during
his present life fails to discover the mysteries of heresy; since this, in
their view, is the resurrection. There are however, a great many also, who, claiming
to hold a resurrection after the soul’s departure, maintain that going out
of the sepulcher means escaping out of the world, since in their view the world
is the habitation of the dead — that is, of those who know not God; or they
will go so far as to say that it actually means escaping out of the body
itself, since they imagine that the body detains the soul, when it is shut up
in the death of a worldly life, as in a grave” (Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the
Flesh, 19).
Frost sought to discredit Ignatius
whom I quoted in my opening argument. He didn’t bother to tell you that the
Epistle of Ignatius that I quoted was not one of the spurious works attributed
to Ignatius, but one that is generally acknowledged to have been written by
him. But, rather than defending Ignatius, I thought it more advisable to give
the reader several quotes from a variety of the earliest writers over whose
writings there is general agreement by scholars that they are authentic, and
who also lived contiguous to the Apostolic age. The reader can see from the
above quotes that I am not in the least being unfair to Frost or uniquely harsh
by stating that his aberrant teachings are “heresy.” I am merely repeating what
the orthodox Christians from the earliest times said of these false doctrines
and those who espouse them.
According to the early orthodox Christians,
those who espoused these heresies yet called themselves “Christians” were being
deceptive. As Tertullian stated above, they use
orthodox words, but put unorthodox (mystical) meanings on them. Through this
ploy they are “in the habit of misleading
our brethren.” This is a deceptive tactic. It is the “wolves in sheep’s clothing” who uses deceptive tactics (Matt.
I have nothing against Sam Frost
personally. My remarks are not personal. My (slim) hope is that he will see the
errors of this false teaching and repent of it. Regardless of that, my first
concern is for those reading this debate, who might be
inclined to accept modern mysticism in the guise of Christianity unless someone
clearly articulates the contrast to orthodox Christianity. I am determined to
uphold the orthodox tradition of the early Christian apologists who earnestly
contended for “the Faith once for all
delivered to the saints” by the Apostles.
The
Ultimate Test of Frost’s Preterism
Finally, there is a really simple way for all of our
readers to find out which of us are espousing error. Frost’s preterism claims
that we are now living in the “new heaven and new earth” and “New Jerusalem.”
The resurrection and second coming have already occurred, and all “prophecy”
has been fulfilled. I assert that all these things are yet future. The graphic
flow chart below will take you through a series of simple tests to determine
who is attempting to deceive and who is telling the truth.
Disclaimer: Test I is not meant to be actually
carried out. We expect that our readers have more sense than to burn their
hands in order to see if preterism is true or not. Common sense dictates the results
of this hypothetical test without actually carrying it out.