DEBATE III / TOPIC IV
/ CLOSING STATEMENT (d.)
The Personal, Bodily, Second
Coming Christ
Closing Statement
Samuel
Frost
Copyright © The Last
Trumpet —
Since Warner has chosen to stay the course of absurdity, I
will have no problems in picking out his amazing inability to discern an
argument. Those who are reading this
debate have noticed these points as well.
In short, if it is Warner’s duty to adequately expose me for a
Christ-hater, then he has failed in that task.
Nothing that he has written even remotely comes close to having me want
to go back to the Dispensational church I was raised in. See, I know Tim’s views. I was raised in them. They never made much sense, then, either, but
I preached it anyhow. Tricky questions
were asked to which my only reply was, “well, that’s what the Bible says.” But, in reality, it was far from biblical
truth. Warner endorses slaughtering animals
by the truck loads for Jesus in the Millennium.
He dodged this by saying “atonement” does not REALLY MEAN
atonement. The sins committed under the
old covenant were not REALLY forgiven.
It was ALL just symbolic. Then he
turns around and accuses me of uses “hidden meanings”! That is why we have chosen to have this
debate left on our website. I want
people to read it! I want them to see
the alternative: slaughtering animals for Jesus, or recognizing the once and
FOR ALL TIME sacrifice of the Lamb.
So, on with the show.
Warner takes 12 pages (12 PAGES!) to respond to my last post. He begins by saying that his first post was
“really simple.” That I, in my response,
“muddied the waters.” 12 PAGES! Apparently, he did not like my response!
The first thing I wish to point out is Warner’s explicit
heresy. Yes, I use heresy. Warner flatly contradicts the Chalcedonian
Creed of 451 A.D. Since Mr. Warner is so
fond, in an almost Roman Catholic way, of the creeds and fathers, he should
have known better. I wrote, “He was not
a human person.
Speaking of Christology, Warner makes another incredible
mistake. He wrote, “there was no Jesus,
is no Jesus, and will be no Jesus without his physical flesh.” Maybe Warner might want to explain what
CHRISTophanies were in the Old Testament.
The Logos is the Divine Person, the Son of God, as
Therefore, it is shown, by orthodoxy, that Jesus became
fully Man, took on flesh and a human nature, that his human nature is not
called a “person” and that Jesus remains fully human to this day without
requiring him to have hairy arms and fingernails. Warner dismisses my argument, falls into
heresy while doing it, then calls me the heretic. I am laughing out loud here.
Now, onto anthropology. Warner wrote, “a man is not a man
without a body.” Does the Bible affirm
this? There are no men with God in
heaven today? Just “disembodied
non-men”? Where does he come up with
this stuff? Samuel was not a “man” when
he spoke to Saul (I Sa 28)? Moses and Elijah were not “men” when they
spoke with Jesus on the mount of transfiguration? That means that while Jesus’ body was in the
tomb for three days, Jesus was not a man!
That is where statements like this lead.
Another theology lesson, the image of God is not IN man. Man IS the image of God. This image defines MAN, not DNA, Tim. God has no body, no arms (well, the Mormons
and JW’s thinks he does, but they are kooks anyhow). He made man in his image. Image is not “flesh”, Tim. How can God make flesh part of the image of
himself when he has no such image?
Again, this is standard theology.
But, Tim states that without a body, Jesus is just some “mystical
fog.” Is that our option, Tim? Or is this another example of an unguarded
statement on your part? God has no body
according to every creed and confession I have read. He has no brain. He, too, must be a mere
“mystical fog.” Follow my reasoning: the
Creeds rightly recognize that only One Person in the Trinity is called the
Logos. This Logos is eternally God’s
Son. He is one Person. Therefore, to be
a Person, and a Son, does not require a human body. In Tim’s view, my grandpa, who died years ago
and his body is currently laying 6 feet under in an
Warner, of course, tries to read all of this into the
“this same Jesus”. It fails. But, allow me to continue pointing out his
errors. First off, Warner states that
“there is nothing said here about the power of God”. Well, Tim, what does a passive verb
mean? It means the subject of the verb
is being ACTED UPON by another agent.
That Luke knew Greek is certain.
That he could have written “Jesus entered into heaven” without a passive
is certain, as well. But, Luke uses the
passive. He was TAKEN UP. The verb form itself is causal. Taken up by whom? In what manner
was he taken up? Then this will be the
SAME MANNER they saw him go. It’s as
simple as that. Tim must make this mean
more than it does in order to read into it “bodily” and “visibly.” He drones on for a paragraph about why Luke
used the passive voice. I have
translated Greek for over 12 years now, and my Ph.D. work is in biblical
languages. The phrase hon tropon (“in like manner”) Warner
takes to mean that “at his second coming [Jesus] will be the same in appearance
as His ascension.” Am I the only one to
notice the difference between the appearance of Jesus in Revelation 1? There, Jesus
is quite different in appearance. Revelation 19 sees Jesus as appearing on
a white horse. Did he leave on a white
horse? Since “horse” is certainly a
“manner” in which one can depart and since Jesus, on Tim’s watch, the ascension
and the descending must be the same, then where was the horse in Acts 1? Where is the white horse in Daniel 7?
Warner mocks at the idea of Jesus being “seen” by some and
not “seen” by others in Acts 1. Yet,
when this “same Jesus” appeared to Saul in Acts 9, Saul’s attendents “did not
see anyone” (9.7). Wait a minute. Jesus appeared to Saul and stood right in
front of him, but his servants “did not see” Jesus? Warner cannot grasp such a thing, but there
it is. It is entirely possible for Jesus
to have appeared to his followers and have only his followers see him without
anyone else.
Next, Warner states quite plainly that the weight and
height of Jesus, whatever it was, was the “same” Jesus that they saw go into a
water-vapor cloud. And, that he would
return in exactly the same frame and weight that he left with. Think, reader, for a second. Think of a cloud outside. Take any cloud. Well, let’s take the cloud in Acts 1. Was that cloud visible to those in
China? Clearly not. Yet, Warner quotes Rev 1: “every eye will see him.”
How? If Jesus occupies space like
you and I do, with weight and height, then, when he appears over China, can
those in America see him? Clearly
not. I once offered this argument to a
Dispy friend of mine. His answer:
television! Jesus will be filmed coming
down from the sky over Jerusalem and every eye would see him on TV! Answers like this should cause serious thinkers
to laugh, but this is about as dumb as it gets.
Logistically, it is impossible to view Jesus over globe at once. Those in China would never see him. If he appeared in Africa, those in Greenland
won’t see him. The absurdity of such a
view (and the Bible never asks us to believe in absurdity) should cause one to
think about such a position. But, that’s
what Warner demands the reader to believe.
I strongly advocate that Warner continue to teach such things because,
last I checked, Preterism is growing precisely because such things are simply
untenable.
Warner then moves on to Daniel 7. He really thinks
that the clouds there in 7.13 are water-vapor clouds that we see every
day. He then continues to quote the
verse where “the Ancient of Days” came. Is
the “son of man” who comes TO the Ancient of Days the same who comes here? Well, in Revelation 1 Jesus is described in
the EXACT SAME imagery used to describe the Ancient of Days. Are they both the same? In the OT, YHWH is described as “one who
rides on the clouds of heaven.” This is
found throughout the Psalms and the Prophets.
Only he “rides on the clouds of heaven.”
When Jesus said to the Sanhedrin that they would see the Son of Man
“coming on the clouds of heaven” the priest tore his robe and said, “he has
uttered blasphemy.” How did Jesus utter
blasphemy by saying that HE would come “on the clouds of heaven”? Was Jesus equating Himself with YHWH? Was Jesus saying, in effect, that HE would be
the one “on the clouds of heaven”? This
is an assertion used of YHWH alone! To
the priests ears, Jesus was saying that he was the rider on the clouds of
heaven! Now, it is particularly said
that THEY would see the son of man coming on the clouds of heaven. But, if Warner is correct, then Jesus is a liar. THEY are all dead (the Sanhedrin). Did they see him come on the clouds of
heaven? Warner says no. Preterists say yes. However, let us say that Warner means that
eventually they would see him coming on the clouds of heaven. For Warner, this is the Second Coming that
happens BEFORE the “rest of the dead” are raised at the end of the
Millennium. Therefore, the coming of the
Lord on the clouds of heaven takes place BEFORE those who made up the Sanhedrin
in Jesus’ day are raised from the dead.
This makes it impossible for Jesus’ prophecy to EVER be fulfilled
here. They are not around to witness the
Second Coming. They are dead. They will not be raised from the dead until
AFTER the Millennium. Jesus does not
come on the clouds to heaven to end the Millennium in Warner’s view. Therefore, Warner makes Jesus out to be, in
fact, a liar. Heresy indeed.
Rather, Preterists, ever loving the words of Jesus, take
Jesus at his words in spite of fallible “fathers” that Warner so adores. Jesus said that THEY would see him coming on
the clouds. I am a heretic for believing
Jesus’ words “at face value.” So be it.
In Psalm 18, when God “comes on the clouds” and rescues
David, did anyone see it? Read Psalm 18
and then try to find what David describes there in the narratives about David’s
life. Do an honest study. When did God shoot arrows against the
Philistines? Warner’s “literalism” fails
to do justice to poetics. But, I have
proven, his literalism runs into such absurdities that one must surely see it
for what it is.
He then goes on to deal with “several points” that I
made. Actually, he does not answer my
questions at all. He once again dodges
how he can take “soon” in Hebrews 8.13 as A.D. 70, but does not take it as such
in Hebrews 10.37. He tells you to read
his article on time statements. Well, I
did. Hebrews 8 and 10 are not there (or
I did not see them there). Nice dodge,
Tim. In that article Warner argues that
Peter deals with the “delay” of the Lord’s return in II Pe 3. Yet, here again,
Warner contradicts Scripture. Let us
read Hebrews 10.37 again, shall we? “For
in just a very, very little while, he who is coming shall come AND WILL NOT
DELAY.” Warner must argue for
delay. Preterists takes the Bible at its
word. Jesus did not “delay” his coming
in the least. What Peter is arguing
against is that SCOFFERS were charging that Jesus had delayed. Peter is arguing that there is NO delay. Everything is right on schedule. Secondly, what were SCOFFERS doing in Peter’s
day expecting Jesus to return at that time anyway? Is this what Peter was preaching? Was Peter preaching that the “parousia” (used
there in Greek) would come in their generation?
What were they SCOFFING at?
“Delay” means that something was originally scheduled to take place, but
didn’t. Is this how God works? “I am going to come at this time” and then,
“you know what, I changed my mind.” But,
this is what Warner actually argues for!
He has dodged this throughout the whole debate, and when I finally have
him agreeing that Hebrews 8.13 is A.D. 70 because of the word “soon” there, he
does not even answer me in a 12 page article!
This should tell you SOMETHING.
In point 3 I wrote, as Warner quoted, that “therefore, we
are born again spiritually, die physically, and are born again-again
physically. How can this nonsense
be?” Warner answers: “It is not
nonsense.” Therefore, one is left to
conclude (and I have never had one do this, so this is a first!) that Warner
believes in two “born again” events for the believer! It is not nonsense for him! I am born again, die, and am born again
AGAIN! Please, for the love of all that
is holy, where does the Bible say, “ye must be born again-again”? But, this is where absurdity takes you when
you refuse to listen to the words of Jesus and take him at his word.
Point 4: “What Frost is actually telling you is that you
already have all Scripture promises right now.”
Well, Paul said it better: “ALL (can you read that, Tim?)…ALL the
PROMISES are YES and AMEN in Christ Jesus.”
“You have EVERYTHING pertaining unto life and godliness.” “You have been blessed with EVERY spiritual
blessing in Christ.” Warner says “no, we
have not.” Preterists say, “yes, you
have.” Jesus came upon the scene and
preached that the kingdom of God had arrived, that he was fulfilling the
Scriptures. The Pharisees said,
“no! Not according to our
traditions!” They limited what God was
doing by quoting “fathers.” Warner does
the same thing. According to Tertullian,
Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, you do not have all the promises in Christ, you do
not have every spiritual blessing. Well,
okay. I think I’ll stick to the Bible,
here, too.
Warner belittles the Christian life by saying “what you
have now is all you get”. He means that
by saying that Preterists say that what you have now is all you get. Well, let’s see. I have reconciliation and peace with
God. I have the forgiveness of sins. I have Christ in me. I am in Christ. I am known of God. I am a son.
A co-heir. The list is
endless. I know that this is not enough
for Warner, but it sure sounds like good news to this sinner. Warner’s view depreciates what Christ has
accomplished because for him, salvation is always in the “yonder over there”
life. This life, this world, is
“evil.” It is going to hell in a
handbasket. As one Dispy said, “You
don’t polish brass on a sinking ship.”
The world is a sinking ship. The
world that Jesus came to redeem is going to hell in a handbasket. Good news?
I guess for Warner, it’s about as good as it gets until God blows the
whole thing up (which he has delayed now in doing, in allowing the evil to
continue). To me, this was the sad way I
used to look at life, until I came to see that the Bible gave me a worldview
that told me that Jesus rules the world and is working ALL THINGS to the good
for those who love Christ Jesus.
One last observation of Warner’s failure to understand the
Bible: He decidedly admits that Jesus is not reigning on the throne. “Jesus did NOT begin to reign in His kingdom
from the time of the ascension.” Someone
might want to tell Paul that. Paul
wrote, “For he MUST CONTINUE REIGNING until he puts all his enemies under his
feet. The last enemy being destroyed is
the death” (I Co 15.25). The Greek here for “reign” is a present infinitive. It denotes an action taking place at the time
of the writer. “For he must continue
reigning” or one could say, “for he must go on reigning.” The present passive for “destroy” also
indicates that Jesus was currently destroying “the death”. Warner, of course, will come up with some
bizarre “future present” scheme here, but Preterists do not have to resort to
such obscurities. Paul uses presents for
both verbs, and Paul’s Greek is far better than Tim’s. How long will the reader not check these things
out for himself? Why be slave to a
bankrupt system of Dispensationalism?
Watch what Warner does: he quotes Revelation
11.15-18 to support that Jesus’ reign is not yet. However, no such thing is done in that
text. “You have taken your power and
have reigned” (aorist). That’s the
Greek. This verse does not at all say
“when” he started to reign. No doubt,
the NIV translates this verb “reigned” as “have begun to reign” using an inceptive idea for the aorist. But the Greek verb itself is simply aorist. Translators have come up with ways of naming
different types of verbs, but this an art, not a science. The KJV translates it simply as “you have
reigned”. Why take the NIV over the KJV
here? Secondly, if the beginning of the
reign of Christ means that “the death” has been placed under his feet, that is,
has been destroyed, then how does Warner account for folks dying in the
Millennium? If “the death” in I Co 15 means physical death, and if
Jesus’ reign means that he has placed all enemies under his feet, including
physical death, then, logically, physical death ceases. But every Pre-Millennialist I know has folks
dying in the Millennium! Third, the
passage here before us goes on. When the
time of this “reign” occurs, “the time has come for judging the dead and for rewarding your servants” (11.18). This is found at the END of the
Millennium! In 20.12 “and he judged the
dead” (same Greek as in 11.18). 22.12
says, “Behold, my REWARD is with me and I will give to each one as their works
are”. At Jesus’ second coming, then,
which in Warner’s view is BEFORE the Millennium begins, he comes with his
reward to give to each man according to his works, and the also judges the
dead. But, this is all said to happen at
the END of the Millennium! The same vocabulary
is used. The books are opened, the dead
are judged “each according to their works.” Maybe Warner has two
“rewards-judgements-resurrections of the dead” like he has two times when we
are born again-again. But, clearly,
death does not end in the Millennium.
So, maybe Warner has death not being put under the feet if Christ UNTIL
the END of the Millennium. However, how
can that be if, in fact, “the dead are judged” when he returns at the BEGINNING
of the Millennium? Victory over death is
when he returns, according to Paul in I
Co 15. I am sure Warner has some
lame excuse for mangling these points, but, to me, the Preterist system has no
consistency problems at all. Everywhere
I turn, Warner contradicts the Bible on these issues.
Finally, Warner quotes the Creeds and the Fathers like a
good Roman Catholic would (and he never dealt with my statements about
Ignatius, another dodge). He slips in,
without proof, that Polycarp was a disciple of John. I asked him to prove this about Ignatius, and
he didn’t. He quotes the Nicene and
Apostles’ Creeds, but not Chalcedon.
Chalcedon explicitly denies that Jesus was a human person, but had a
human nature and divine nature in One Person.
Warner heretically believes that Jesus is also a person, thus, Chalcedon
is wrong. But, if orthodoxy is defined
by what the Creeds state, then Warner is a heretic, plain and simple. He has Christ as two Persons, the Logos, and
the Human. He goes on and on with long
quotes from the fathers, but never once answered my questions concerning
Ignatius and the Bishops. “Rather than
defending Ignatius” he moves on to other areas.
Thus, what are we left with? Well, number one, Warner is a heretic. I subscribe to Chalcedon, he does not. Two: Warner is inconsistent. Three: he dodged most of my statements and
did not answer them (like, what happened to Elijah’s body, or Ignatius). He denies the rule of Christ today. He flatly contradicts the Bible. He utilizes passages with such extreme
literalism that he cannot maintain consistency in other passages. He advocates that believers are born again
twice. Sounds like a real heck of a view
you got going for you there, Tim.
Warner wrote, “I have nothing against Sam Frost
personally.” Let’s read what Tim really
means: I have nothing against Sam Frost personally, just that he is a wolf in
sheep’s clothing, a heretic, a deceiver, a son of satan, a gnostic, a mystic,
outside of Christianity, but other than that, a great guy. Hmmm.
It is no secret that Preterism disagrees with the Creeds
on this point. The Creeds “have and may
err” according to the Westminster Confession of Faith. See, they are fallible documents. Tim wields them like the Bible. He states that I am not Reformed, but this is
a lie, too. I am a Calvinist in my
definitions of God’s sovereignty. I hold
to all five solas of the
Reformation. That does not mean that I
agree with Calvin in eschatology, though.
Calvin was a “partial-preterist.”
His commentary on Zechariah
14, for example, explicitly understands that Jerusalem’s demise in A.D. 70 is
meant. He clearly uses the “spiritual
hermeneutic” in that passage. Jesus
standing on the Mount of Olives and ascending into heaven, Calvin says, was
fulfillment of Zech 14. But, even Tim can see the inconsistency here
on Calvin’s part. One cannot maintain
that Zech 14 is fulfilled without
also including the Second Coming. I,
then, make adjustments. Adjustments are
what is meant by the Reformed slogan semper
reformanda (“always reforming”).
Even Warner has distanced himself from Classical Scofield
dispensationalism for what he calls “progressive dispensationalism.” Warner can call me what he likes, it makes no
difference to me. I won’t have to answer
for it.
Samuel Frost
Elder, Christ Covenant Church
Epiphany, 2004
wwwchristcovenantchurch.com