Refuting Hyper-Preterism PT.2 w/ Dr. Sam Frost | Our Response to Don Preston and Michael Sullivan

So dr. Frost and I are here this evening Wanting to do a response video to Don Preston and Michael Sullivan They've done a few response videos to us in our last video and they made it very clear

That we need to apologize to them and I just want to tell you from the bottom of my heart that I am sorry

But full preterism is still a cult Hello and welcome to the apologetic dog where it's our hearts desire to contend for the truth specifically the truth of the gospel and we do that by Analyzing different worldviews and we do internal critiques to show that they actually contradict themselves and so our hearts desires to war against any professed knowledge that rivals the

Knowledge of God and we take all thoughts captive to the obedience of Christ. And so welcome to the apologetic dog

I also want to inform you that I serve as a pastor and elder at twelve five church

This is a church in Northeast, Arkansas specifically in Jonesboro, Arkansas and Please look us up on our website twelve five church calm if you're interested in any of our preaching series

And if you're in that area, please come out and we'd love to meet you in person So with that being said

We are doing an episode this evening. Dr Sam frost and myself are doing a response video to a response video.

And so let me bring him in real fast Dr. Frost. Thank you so much for joining the apologetic dog again.

How are you doing this evening? I'm fine. I'm fine We're good. I like doing a response video to a response video.

Yes, that's what we're doing today And it was made very apparent last time that we owed

Michael Sullivan and Don Preston an apology and I want you to hear something

What I immediately thought of when they said that This is this response video is meant to be in good fun

We love Michael Sullivan and Don Preston and they are free to say whatever they want towards you towards myself

I understand we are passionate about these things and guess what we disagree with one another

So for people that get upset listen, this video is probably not for you But we do desire to get into the weeds and the thick of all these things talking about full preterism

Hyper preterism and so we are going to be looking and analyzing clips from Don Preston and Michael Sullivan and some of their response videos and The thing that they were mad about.

Dr. Frost is the fact that we use the word cult and Don Preston said okay cults are when you can recognize a particular leader

That's making everybody drink the Kool -Aid and I think that is one example of a cult, right?

But we are talking about cult more in the broader sense when you deviate from Orthodoxy and that can be demonstrated from the scripture from history

That's a cult to deviate from orthodoxy. And so I actually agree with his standard when we start talking about a central figurehead

That's exactly what the Church of Christ look like you have Alexander and Thomas Campbell Essentially beginning this restoration movement and I agree that would be a good example of a cult

But with full preterism, this is a little bit different. It's a little bit broader We just see a major shift away from orthodoxy.

And so that's what we're talking about when we are saying Well, not only does it have cult like tendencies that you spoke to last time, but it just totally swerves away from the faith

So did you want to say anything about the word cult and if there are me well -meaning people within perhaps full preterism?

Well, it's a Of course one of those hard words to define it, you know

Thinking back my reading Mac Webber Or else or others that try to define the term it's a it's

Kind of a term you can get identified with so you get a label and then you're identified with it

Then you're identified with a particular movement that That's regarded as outside the main frame, right?

And something you brought up last time was that's not to disparage everybody in a particular movement that is

Cultish there are well -meaning people that are trusting the correct Jesus In faith alone apart from trusting anything that they can do and accomplish

And so that's why we're actually doing videos like these to say hey Here's all the danger signs, please leave right please go somewhere that we do see

Biblically grounded not only in history, but from scripture And so when we were not using the word cult as a scare tactic

We're actually saying we will legitimately believe this and we love people enough to actually warn them of this kind of danger

So, you know what though? They are free Don Preston and Michael Sullivan to say that and I'm not offended.

I don't need an apology I understand where they're coming from. They're passionate about these things. So we're just gonna hash it out one day.

Dr. Frost I would love to see Michael Sullivan take up our invitation to have you on here and debate mono a mono

I know he's not really interested in that right now, but the invitation still stands and who knows

What the future holds so the the issue with with coal here is that word?

If what you're dealing with are major Fundamental tenets of the historic

Christian faith whether you're Eastern Orthodox and all of its various branches

Ukrainian Russians Greek or Roman Catholic and its various branches or Protestant Bible believe it won't say

Bible believing reformational Protestant Bible evangelical all of these

Have maintained the major fundamental points that you and I are going to talk about tonight and the full preterist says that all of that is wrong and they treat them as if it's

You know, it's kind of no big deal. So let's talk about it and let's see if but it is a big deal.

These are either major fundamental points of Christianity That have altered our perceptions in the way that we look at the world from beginning to End and the story that we're in now and where we're going right?

We can arch that based upon this grand Narrative of beginning middle and the end and there is an end whereas the full preterist comes along and says no, there's not

Well, that is a massive shift. That's a major major thing to orient your mind around so in that Degree to your definition of cult.

It's an offshoot. It's a furious It's going off the track of right how we would normally think about these things

Yes So our first video clip, dr. Frost You were accused of saying full preterism is

Gnosticism. Okay. So let me play this clip real fast. And then you tell me if that's really what's going on Mr.

Sam Frost made a false a false accusation

The second point and you that same one you by the way great list there. I Mean, you know, and of course

I had the same list basically But but the the second item that I really want to touch on and we will probably hit you a lot of the others as We go along but the other one was well, this is

Gnosticism Preterism is Gnosticism because they deny the physical body redemption and All right.

That was just a short clip and I want to encourage the the viewers go listen to the full

Response from Michael Sullivan and Don Preston. Hey, well, I'm only gonna play about 30 second 45 second clips

Go listen to the full context. I'm sure they will accuse us of not fully representing them Well, we just want people to get a taste and I tried my best to begin and stop these clips with full sentences

So were you really saying that full preterism is one -to -one full preterism is

Gnosticism? You know a couple of points is You talk about representing them.

So John Preston after our first video that you and I did I posted that of course and then

Don Preston got on there and Imposed that exegetical essays on the resurrection, which is a book

I wrote that was published first in 2008 by truth or Virgil Badoeva Publisher and then that ran out of its copies and he didn't want to pick it back up again.

So I Gave it over to Don Preston around I think 2009 2010

Don still sells that book He's on video on YouTube saying this is a must -read by scholar

Sam Frost. It's a must -read book It's one of the best books ever written on resurrection of the dead from the full predators perspective and just that and the others so I'm not just Relating what it is, or I just read some books by Don and said hey, here's what full preteristly

I was one of them I taught alongside Don the room together in hotel room

I've spoken at his pilgrim spark of pilgrim preterist weekend I spoke with Mac King Tim King Ed Stephens all of them at over 20 conferences throughout the

United States So I'm not just representing their view. I know their view. I Live right now.

She wanted me to I lived it Told my house Started a church that was a six -figure business by the way, but I told but I believed in this hook line and sinker

So I'm not misrepresenting What it is that they believe and in fact on this charge of Gnosticism that I wrote in This place

Pope was sold over 4 ,000 copies 2003 when that came out I Wrote in that book that we should relook at the second century

Statements from Nag Hammadi library that we were getting the gospel of Judas and gospel of Thomas gospel of Philip and Maybe relook at that because what they're saying is kind of sort of like what we're saying about Resurrection and maybe the early church, you know fathers got it wrong and these

Gnostic Might have got it a little bit of right. I said that in my book this place.

Oh so I've never stated in anywhere that I've written that Full plethorism is full -blown

Gnosticism. I've read it Gnostic like Has Gnostic tendencies.

I've used the phrase neo Gnosticism. I didn't invent that so real quick. Dr Frost, can you really pinpoint those areas where full plethorism is very similar to Gnosticism right just really paint that picture for our viewers

You know, it's made this major Tenet is that the resurrection is spiritual.

Mm -hmm It has nothing to do with the flesh whatsoever and that we've already obtained it once you're indwelt by the spirit

That's resurrection. The regeneration is akin to or equal to Resurrection of the dead and that were delivered if you all have already died

Then it's to be delivered out of the netherworld was kind of a day and think great care. You got to think

Homer You know earlier than Odyssey you got to think that so It's yeah, it's very

Greek. It's very Gnostic like because I recall when I was watching

Michael Sullivan and Don Preston they were rightly pointing out Gnosticism is this kind of duality of everything physical

Is evil and everything spiritual is good and we understand that so we're not saying and then

I know you're not saying that Full preterism is one -to -one the same as Gnosticism.

You're just saying there's a lot of shared tendencies going on between the two Yeah, I've never said that in front.

I've always caught I've always clarified that too because I knew that such as but the claim

And I've got tons of Gnostic literature so it I Would just never say that right

Mike Sullivan kind of corrects him there a little bit Yeah, and then they just move on to the next point

Sure, maybe Sullivan was feeling the okay. Well, that's not exactly what dr. Frost was saying

So yeah, which when they do that, I appreciate that right and I do get how you know

Emotions get high through these back and forth, especially when you do a response video to response video to response video

It's hard to get it right every time but it's all good. Once again, we don't need an apology I get how these things happen and I encourage people just to sit and listen take notes and if you agree you disagree leave me a comment and Below you're not gonna hurt my feelings.

I actually appreciate the interaction with people. So with that being said, dr Frost, do you care if we move on to the next point where?

Tom Holland was brought up a scholar. Does that ring a bell at all? Yeah Okay Was that University of South Wales?

He wrote a book on Paul's theology And so he focuses in on the corporate dimensions of Paul's body relationship

Let me play this clip real fast because like you're saying Don Preston and Michael Sullivan get into a

Corporate aspect. What did Paul have in mind when he said? No one in the flesh can please

God Oh according to Jeremiah and Sam. They're just a bunch of Gnostics Let me let me play the clip of them saying that and they quote

Tom Holland and then I want you to speak to that It's what Paul said those are in the flesh. Can it be pleasing to God?

Well, listen, you know I just say I love Don Preston's energy. I wish

I had a little bit more of that Yeah Frost is writing on the book of Romans.

He knows that in Romans chapter 8 and well 7 and 8 He knows that Paul wasn't speaking of the biological flesh when he said those are in the flesh.

Can it be pleasing to God? But it does it actually goes back to Romans 5 and 6 well sure and the mortal body the body of death the body of flesh as and has he uses them elsewhere in Colossians and Ephesians and As you know

Tom Holland deals with these terms Yes, and and cites other scholars and says whoa, this is not referring to this.

That's right It's either the sinful mode of existence or it's a corporate body Yeah, it's got nothing to do with that.

Now, I guess Tom Holland and the scholarship there is going Gnostic All right, dr.

Frost. Are they going Gnostic according to our standard? You know, this is what we do and we did a lot of what we call very picking or quote mining

Apparently Tom Holland, well, he doesn't mean that I've got a commentary on Romans Which is an absolutely wonderful commentary and I highly highly recommend

Tom Holland Work, but let's just read here what he says on Romans 8 11.

He says Again, the framework of the argument is community not the individual

This was made explicit by the Greek Paul says the spirit dwells in you However, the focus is about the changes

Paul writes that the spirit will give life to your mortal body In other words, the focus is no longer the corporate experience of resurrection

But that of each believer all speaks of their common experience as members one of another as members of Christ This split underlines that while we are seeking to show we're seeking to follow the corporate thinking of the

Apostle which he does He never leaves the individual out of the frame of his thought the church is made up of Individuals and they will with the rest of the church be raised on their on those last day so he's very

Very explicit there as to what he's stating and then as far as What he means by that he takes it

Painfully obvious in on page 212 of the same book where he talks about creation groaning he says

The background here is Genesis 1 Genesis 3 1 through 3 and It is stating the fact that the hope is the destination of the creation

That will be redeemed itself Not just the creatures, but the creation itself will be redeemed through resurrection and redemption of the body

So what he's saying very clearly is that the body the body of Christ members of the church made up of individuals

Will be raised in the last day and he believes in affirms bodily resurrection as well

So I can read that both in a corporate sense and also in an individual thing They're saying and it would give the impression by the quotations that Tom Holland agrees with what full predators are saying

Hmm, he does not you have to read the entire context of what? Mr. Holland is saying and this would be an example of the fallacy of cherry -picking or quote -binding and that's exactly right

I did it when I was a full cutter. Yeah, and Mike's doing it right now.

He's I mean Tom Holland wouldn't be on their side. No, not at all Not not at all.

Not at all. They can contact you Yeah, he used to be at University South.

Well, I don't know if he's at Edinburgh now But that book on Romans is the two -volume set on Romans wonderful commentary

Came out in 2015. So let me ask you this real quick. Do you think the goal of them?

You know quoting reform guys and people on our side that are disagreeing with some of our convictions is just to try to Make us be pitted against each other saying look y 'all are so Contradictory y 'all can't agree.

So y 'all need to come and listen to us Do you think there's anything like that going on when they're just cherry -picking a lot of reformers including them?

Well, I did the same thing and why I left full frederism in the book where I can take John Preston Mike Sullivan Dave Green and Ed Steven They're all full predators, right?

And I can put them such together because they all disagree with each other on details on many many many people

I can throw some Max King in there He's a bullfighter and if I put them together and take some quotes out this that and the other

I end up with the conclusion Of physical resurrection of the body in the future.

He's very easy to do this The problem is is that in all of these disagreements that these scholars have in the details of many of these types of things

They all Agree on the major Fundamental tenet of resurrection of the dead in the last day and new heavens and the earth all of them

But so when you have that kind of context in which they're arguing about details as to how that will come about.

Yeah That it will come about we all agree. Yeah, how it comes about free millennial all millennial free rat with okay

We'll get we'll go through the details and so all that Mike is showing there is that Eschatology is very complex and there's a lot of people that disagree.

Hmm. Okay, we already knew that Yeah, now you mentioned you mentioned resurrection of the dead that actually transitions to the next point on let's talk about Last time you and I got together.

We talked about hominids and Felida's with the resurrection right now

It's interesting because full preterists they see the resurrection and the second coming as one event

Now before I play the clip We I thought we're super clear about how what

Paul is addressing is the timing of the resurrection Please don't miss this. It is a gospel issue

Sure, we talked about how the nature of the resurrection wasn't being dealt with in this particular text

It was the timing and what we are pressing for is the timing of the resurrection is a gospel issue

We believe the resurrection is a future event right full predators believe that the resurrection already happened at 7 a .d

So if Paul was alive in our day and a future bodily resurrection is true.

How would Paul? Treat full preterists today. Well, they would he would be treat them like communists and Felida's He would say you're you're you're teaching gangrene you were teaching something that is poisonous and causing people to swerve from the truth and so You know, they they tried to say

Oh, well They're just talking about the timing and somehow that assumes that Paul and hymenaeus and Felida's agreed on the nature of the resurrection

Let me play this clip. Dr. Frost and I'd love to get your thoughts on you know, Sam some years ago tried to say well

It's obvious that hymenaeus and Felida's were just perverting Paul's doctrine of the resurrection

Well, if you're gonna make the claim then give us the proof Why are you not giving this proof dr.

Frost anyway once oh don't just say they perverted it what we do know is this They perverted the time

And as you just pointed out, that's what Paul corrected and that's what Sam admitted on the blog

That's what Paul corrected Paul did not correct any concept of the nature of the resurrection

Did you didn't even try to attempt to correct it? Dr. Frost? Oh, sorry now folks ask yourself the question

If Paul was teaching physical resurrection and if hymenaeus was teaching physical resurrection

If hymenaeus and Paul were on the same page in regard to the nature of the resurrection

Then it would make perfect sense for Paul to correct only the timing that hymenaeus and filetus were misconstrued

Fallacy, so if you got agreement as to the nature, but you're just disagreeing on the timing then what happened with Paul and hymenaeus

Fits perfectly. Well if however Paul's teaching one doctrine of the resurrection as to the night different in nature and hymenaeus is teaching a radically different Resurrection different in nature

Then why did Paul even bother with the time? All right, dr.

Frost unleashed There are several Logical fallacy there number one of asserting the negative number two

You're smuggling in a hidden assumption that that hymenaeus and Paul had this big powwow of agreement as to the nature of the resurrection

I'd like to know where that where he found that information that it does. He have the letter of Paul to hymenaeus.

I Where did you get this information now? This is an interesting segue on the and the part that we did on on Gnosticism All right

I've got as you can see behind me and that's like the it's just a smidgen of what fills the basement down here

Thousands of thousands of books all that knowledge got about another thousand at the church so Here the rant

I randomly just procure test Out of all the one volume commentaries

I got so I picked the most liberal one that I could find These are the critical Franklin. This is a this is

Harper's Bible commentary. Okay, great great one volume Seminary everything you find it.

I'll hold that up again. I'll make sure everybody's able to see it properly Bible commentary and Ralph Martin Don should know who

Ralph Martin Second Timothy And what's

Again, this is randomly picked out. I could have picked any one of them. But anyway, I picked this one

So he writes the writer exposes some kind of teaching regarding resurrection with the corollary that Baptism or something along those lines again

He says the best parallel verse in the newly discovered Gnostic treatise on resurrection from the

Nag Hammadi library As the Apostle said we would suffer with him We also have arisen with him and descended into heaven with him

This is the spiritual resurrection which follows the resurrection of the flesh on Hymen is the first Timothy 124 his excommunication the second century acts of Paul notice

He goes right into the second century. That's it. That's where he's going I'm not the only one doing that Dom Ralph Martin is and Ralph Martin dwarfs me as far as I'm concerned

Axel Paul associates this teaching with them up and hermogeneous. So here

This is a randomly and all of them say the same thing The implication is that Paul taught what we know he taught according to Tom Holland Is the resurrection of the body and that obviously did not happen past already

So the only way you could say past already is to spiritual life And it's for this reason that's implied in past already

But Paul is taking such great umbrage at what I'm in there and belated is saying and I can't find a commentary anywhere

That would support what Don is saying there. They it wasn't just a

Not even the NET Bible No, yeah, which we'll get into in a little bit

I think issue is bound up in the nature issue because obviously if it already happened

It's spiritual. Yeah, this is this is against Paul's teaching of bodily

Resurrection against quoting Tom Holland or Tom Wright or Han or Scott McKnight All of us all of all the scholars

I think I honestly think Michael Sullivan and Don Preston missed our point.

We were talking about the timing of the resurrection being a gospel issue

They should look at us and say hey y 'all got the timing of the resurrection wrong.

Therefore They should be evangelizing us persuading us with anathema that if we do not believe the right timing of the resurrection

I think they completely missed our point, but hopefully this time around it will stick now

I did throw in there, you know, did he even does the NET Bible, you know, tell us

You know about if Paul and hominid simply has had agreement I say that because I'm setting us up for our next point now

I want to transition if you're okay with them. I'd like to transition to Ecclesiastes But to back up what that point that you're making is which is an excellent point is

Let me let me say that you and I agree with this statement. I deny That any resurrection of the dead took place in 70

AD I deny that Jesus descended from the heavens in 70

AD I deny that that is the end of the age and I deny that that was the second coming of Christ and I deny it that It is biblical truth.

In fact, not only do I deny it I vehemently oppose it now if that is the truth and I vehemently oppose it the way that I do and condemn it as heretical

And yet I claim to be a follower of Jesus Christ. Hmm. Can I do that?

Is that possible? I Want to be buddy buddies with Evangelicals, right?

I don't know why Yeah, well, you know, it goes back to those red flags of a cult

They are trying to infiltrate, you know at some respect level, you know, at least

Mormons They try to say we are the latter -day saints the churches we know in history

They went apostate and so at least I'm glad there's a clear understanding that we're not on the same team

And so we're saying the heresy of hominidus and felidus. That's what Paul is illustrating here The timing matters and they didn't even get into the nature of that resurrection in that context

So I would like to talk about Ecclesiastes 3 11 however

Listening to Michael Sullivan. He sounded so excited when he found

I think it was the NET Translation that's the one I don't know if he said that or misspoke, but I did go with and look up the

NET Translation which I'll pull up that slide here in a minute But I want you to hear what Michael Sullivan and Don Preston say here

Ecclesiastes 3 11 and 12 in the ERT Bible states this so he didn't say any tea

But I think that's what he meant. God has made everything fit beautifully in its appropriate time

But he has also placed ignorance in the human heart and again that Hebrew word can be ignorance can be darkness can be world

Can be eternity. All right here. It's ignorance in the human heart so that people cannot discover what

God has ordained from the beginning to the end of their life

The end of their lives. All right, so he found a Translation I know if it wasn't the

NET maybe there's two translations. I want to throw this up on the screen so Once again, the

NET Bible Translates this God has made everything Fit beautifully in its appropriate time

But he has also prepared ignorance in the human heart so that people cannot discover what

God has ordained From the beginning to the end of their lives So I don't have any more of that clip, but they go on to say

Dr. Frost that you in no way attempted to explain the context of Ecclesiastes 3 11.

So what's going on in that chapter? Well, the word ignorance is not in the I'm looking at the

Masoretic here In the I Don't know where he's getting.

Let me pause you real quick because let me tell you what else is not in the original Hebrew of Their lives so for the audience,

I have it underlined and read Hopefully y 'all can see it on your side But it says to the right the phrase of their lives does not appear in the

Hebrew text Yeah, but is supplied in the translation for clarity So guess what?

That's someone's commentary Okay, guess what full preterists do all the time when they read

Ecclesiastes or they read Daniel 12 Isaiah 65 they give us what they think the text means

But guess what what their interpretation is. It's not literally what the text is saying

And so I feel like Don and Michael they're like, oh my goodness, you know This is exactly how we read it the first time we read it and oh my goodness.

We found a translation Dr. Frost, you know what that reminded me of it reminded me of last time and you said so you're telling me there's a change

Yeah, you're telling me there's a chance So I think in another place

Mike was saying that I made the claim that I search every single Translation in the history of the existence the

German commentaries, especially yeah, and I I've read every single commentary that can ever been written in the history of mankind

No, just the 20 25 top ones.

I can't But you start getting the consensus None of them say that and I thank

God that I missed that translation because it's a horrible Translation and I'm glad I didn't

I don't see it and I wasn't even aware of it and I'm so thankful There are much for you for bringing that up when you showed me that footnote.

I my jaws. I thought oh, well, that's the end of that That one anymore so that the

Hebrew text is pretty Clear as to what it's saying. He's put into heart

That which man cannot find out The work that God has done notice the subject is not man work that God has done

From beginning and to the end in other words What has it began the work that God has done from beginning to end?

What is it and I'm sorry to bring philosophy in but you're a politician, right? Focus more in on those things in any time ancient near Eastern literature

Buddhism in any period of time of our ancient past or present or future or any religion or Any philosophy any one of the pick one does not discuss

Where we came from Why are we here? And where are we going?

Can you name one where where we came from The beginning where are we going?

What in other words purpose teleology tell a pain goal purpose?

Well to know where I'm going. I Got to know what I think And I didn't just drop out of the sky came from my parents who came from my parents who came from my parents who came from us and so forth and so on so that's

Jewish commentary Protestant Catholic Orthodox They all say that that's that's what

Solomon the man of wisdom is saying in this text that man has longed in his art put into his art

To know where I where where we came from And where are we going what's the current division today going on in American politics?

It's about the past Revisionism or whatever and it's about the future where we're going green new deal.

We got to get off in it We need to stop your frost. That's That's what we gotta understand

It's just talking about man's lives because the next verse talks about things that we do under the

Sun So it seems like you're just trying to do everything that you possibly can to avoid 70

AD Yeah I'm in good company, you know, so I'm not gonna fret over that well

I wanted to bring up another point with Ecclesiastes 311 because we're gonna be shifting in a little bit to come back to the

Problem of infinity with full preterism, but the ESV says God has made everything beautiful in its time

Everything if everything continues on into infinity. Did you really get that concept of everything?

Dr. Frost? Yeah, no, and it doesn't imply that infinity and it's not

He's made everything beautiful in its time The context is clearly about a time to do this the time to do that a time to do this

Part of our problems there is when

When is it a time to? you know in your own life decision -making is incredibly difficult to do especially when you have a lot of good off and He makes everything beautiful in its own season except planet

Earth infinity that goes on, you know, evil goes on forever So it's not going to make that beautiful in its own so There's so many things wrong.

There's no way that you could pull full preterism out of The book of Ecclesiastes and it's problematic of showing

How we used to read how I used to read the Bible. Yeah In those years when

I was really in that mode of thinking And I wrote I would read

Ecclesiastes and I would read these passages What does that got to do with 70 AD that that was the whole backdrop of my whole mind?

Was what does this got to be the 70 AD? How can I how can I link this to 70

AD because if anything stepped outside of that boundary of 70 AD?

Then it's not fulfilled. Right? We're still we're still wrestling and struggling and and I can read anything in Ecclesiastes and then yeah, that's

Whoever wrote this book was was given a lot of wisdom Something else

I want to emphasize with Ecclesiastes 3 is We're arguing for the beginning of end of history

Guess what that includes every personal every person's life from the time that they were born right the time as they're growing up from a young man to an old man a time where they have to go to war in The time where they're gonna reach the end of their life.

Guess what God's created history Includes all of those things and so it's it's bizarre to me that they're trying to divorce

God's sovereignty right how he does literally Coherently and Exhaustively know all things we're gonna get more into how they're really doubling down on trying to Manipulate the omniscience of God and we're being accused of having the scare tactics

I want people to hear the reasons why we're not just saying church of Christ cult

Be an open theist Arminian a scare tax we're saying no, we want to look at the consistency of what's being said and we want to take it to its logical conclusion and Then for the audience test what we're saying go to the scriptures yourself

Understand it, you know is everything going on into infinity actually a problem or not?

And so that's something that I really want to just stress dr. Frost is We're arguing for the whole redemptive history that would include everybody's lives

And so they're wanting to divorce that here in Ecclesiastes chapter 3 we can you can read even further

If you just keep reading in that context down 317 and I said in my heart

God shall judge both the judge and the just and the wicked Mmm, and then shall be the time of everything.

Oh What Huh? Wait a minute that passage is actually picked up in Romans where Paul says to each man will be given to work

That's actually quoted and taken out of Ecclesiastes 2 Where it says each man will be given according to his work and his labor and his reward

God will judge the just and the unjust. Oh that sounds in Testament, doesn't it? Mm -hmm.

Mm -hmm 7080 He's not talking about that they're from beginning to end and God will judge the just very easily understood

What Solomon is saying is that there must be an end? There has to be a final reconciliation a final realization of justice where every crime act of wickedness

Every molestation every rape every kidnapping every child molested every act of war

Aggression senseless violence will be fully rectified and the whole world will be it and will be fully satisfied by the justice of God and the reward that he has given.

I mean the full satisfaction of the justice and the righteousness of God himself So that has not happened yet Not even not even close

Seemingly from our limited perspective here under the Sun now you started bringing out a concept in the end the end of time

Now it's interesting because listening to Don Preston and Michael Sullivan they brought up I think it was

Revelation 10 verse 6 and They they really questioned you on this.

Dr. Frost. I can tell that y 'all are super close Y 'all are buddies here So I wanted to play this short clip

And then they go to this and I definitely wanted to hear your thoughts on it. So this is their comments They may say

Revelation 10 7, but I'm pretty sure it's verse 6. So let me cue that up I was

I was somewhat staggered when he went over Revelation chapter 10 7 and tried to make it say end of time

How dare you? It would be really really good if our viewers

Would avail themselves of GK Beal. Now look you have to understand GK Beal is no friend of Preterist Okay, there's another scholar mentioned in that but yet speak to that scholar and speak to Revelation 10 6

He said 7, but I think he meant verse 6. Yeah 6 And we'll get the bill later on and talking about the

Millennium because I I highly recommend Greg Beal and yeah, at least

Don admitted is no friend to a full predator. So none of them are There's not one scholar of Beal's merit or Apollon's merit or Wright's merit

That would even come close to what it is that these guys are saying and they know that but Revelation 10 6

Says here at the very end the last verse of it the last part of it

That there should be time no longer That's the King James Version Translation the

Geneva Bible also has times to be no more It's a rain the Jubilee Bible the

New Testament for everyone the Orthodox Jewish Bible the litmus Bible There's several other translations that have time shall be no more now

There's also translations that have shall be no more further delay No more delay no further delay

There will be no more delay the may no longer so that's enough major translations that have a

Different translation, so I'm not just quoting the NEC. I'm quoting several Translations that have time shall be no more

Well, the Greek text Literally translated says chronos who get the effect.

So that's Time is a noun You can't say is no longer

SI is first person For a future or third person rather future

It's singular the subject of the verb is chronos. Hi Time shall be no more

That's that's the rendering the interesting thing about this

Is that in all the other exact phrasing of what shall be no more

Which is rendered just like this is found in Revelation 21 For example death shall be no more you could just take death out and put chronos.

Hey, that's just gonna be delayed Yeah No one translate that dance death will be delayed

Pain shall be no more They don't say pain is delayed there will be no more

Sun It's the same Greek phrasing that's used All you do is just take one subject out put the other one in whether it's death pain

Sun moon Whatever you can put whatever in there you want so but for some reason a

Good deal of translations have the word delay Well, I'm looking at here a 17 page study where I went through as a nerd.

That's just what I do But I went through every single occurrence of Greek Classical literatures of how you press the word delay or the idea of delay

So there's several words. There's a net Oh Cronies, oh on a bow lay, but I do know

Costas a little hot heck. Oh, there's all kinds of words of saying delay and Revelation 10 6 is not one of them

Not even close So I went on and on on this paper and I haven't published this paper

But again, again, I just throw it over and over and over again Where the aspect in time is delayed then

I go in and quote Several other scholars that see this just in the same way, but no

I haven't seen quite in the exhaustive translational studies As this one, but again, it's quite exhaustive.

I spent some time Well, it just takes a lot of time And then a little and Scott's lexicon and went through just the classic literature

How do you find in Aristotle or Apollodorus or Sophocles or Aristophanes or whoever you read it?

And I read a lot of Greek. So if that doesn't make me right just because I read a lot of Greek doesn't make me right

I just love Greek But this is not how you express delay. In other words,

I'm reminded of the year I sat under dr. Bruce Waltz. He's doing my Hebrew.

He sat on the International version translation committee and he shared with a student there was five of it

He shared with us personally his note of that committee and he always reminded us that translation is involved with interpretation

He's very difficult to separate translation from interpretation So on a committee you'll have a

Baptist scholar a Methodist scholar Presbyterian scholar a Lutheran scholar and they're all kind of vying for their own little

Doctrine there because that's how they that's how their tradition reads that verse and It was that was a very eye -opening moment.

That was 1999 That was a very eye -opening moment for me because he was expressing that translation is possible

It's just Hebrews not English English does not Greek and Greek is not Jesus. So That Training that I got there just opened

My eyes to this kind of stuff and if it is true in Frederick you make cases for translational issues

Sure, and I'm making a case for translational issues here that there shall be no more delay is a horrible translation

There's no use for it. It's purely an Interpretational translation dr.

Frost. I want to bring perhaps some of our audience up to speed Like why are we even talking about whether Tom's going to be delayed or if it's gonna be no more full preterism means that Certain things have happened in the past.

Yeah, and with the term full preterist We understand that the major events within orthodoxy that we see a part of our blessed

Hope like the second coming of Jesus God setting up the new heavens and new earth

The eternal state that's future Jesus coming back to judge the living and the dead at the resurrection

These are all things that we see as still not yet still future full preterism puts all of those in the past at 70

AD and So something else that we're getting into the weeds about is they see that anytime you read the word end

That it's talking about the end of the old covenant age of Israel And so they're always marking that as 70

AD which I want to tell people Yes, 70 AD the destruction of the temple. That was that was a big deal and for perhaps

Dispensational pre -millennium futurist. We need to make sure and remind them. Hey 70 AD was a big deal, right?

That was the end of an old covenant age But it goes too far because they say well In fact every time that you read end of age, even if it's grounded in a new covenant context

It only reversed to 70 AD nothing past that and so I just wanted to catch everybody up to speed a little bit and so what they're having to do now is

Say that all of relevant time in Scripture is pointing to this leading up to 70

AD and then after 70 AD time just continues on into Infinity and so we're gonna we're setting the plane up for that Here in just a little bit, but I just want to catch everybody up to speed

Are you ready to move on to the thousand miles, you know, you and I work well together because you reminded me and it's that It's the word

Cronos. That's the key word. They're right not Cairo Cronos will be no more

Cronos was the major term for time as we understand it Looking at your what that's that would be

Cronos a calendar. What time is it? Hey, we got to do a show Six o 'clock that's Cronos time

It's a very, you know regimented. So we all and that's what it said to shall be no more

So it's not and again, it's very clear that but here's the point But you said and this is this just really gets to the heart of the matter

I can provide My defense for why I think that birth says in agreement with a good deal of Translation major translates major commentaries major scholars, whatever

And so I can build a legitimate case using lexical information syntax and bending no rule breaking no rule of hermeneutics found logical reasoning research compiling together putting things together and just that and the others and I would still say even though I Believe what it is that I believe about Revelation 10 6 and that I've made a good case and that that's my opinion

That's my judgment, right? I would still acknowledge and say well I understand that there's a great deal of other scholars that you know argue for delay in this that you know

They're not okay all as well as good in scholarship The full predators, however can't do that, right?

See you see what I'm saying? Yep. He allows there's no No wiggle room and so the here's called the dogmatism that comes in they can't have any

Scholarly academic wiggle room work. You know what? Let's agree to disagree you make but you make a good case.

Dr. Prosper you make a good case. Mr. Ryder. You make a good case Jeremiah You know,

I see what you're saying, you know, I disagree, but that's a good thing They're not allowed that If that verse even possibly say

Time shall be no more. That's it. That's just we're done

Full preterism has just exploded. So they can't have even be legitimate academic

Syntactical lexical translational You can't even build a case.

So in Don's world When he says things like I almost dropped mine My head almost exploded when

Sam said that this verse means time shall be no more like I made it up like I Just made it up because I'm so anti full preterist.

I just I'm just making it up No, no, Don. I'm quoting. I'm doing the work that I was trained to do by three mentors

I do you want an apology? No Because let me tell you who won't give you an apology

Conor McGregor will not give you an apology. Sorry about it So we are in the book of Revelation We've been talking about Revelation chapter 10 verse 6 and you're saying look there's there's grammatical

Historical syntactical reasons why time chronos should be no more and you're highlighting the fact that the full preterist

They need time to go on into infinity. They have to have it that's that you have to have that and you're just saying all the evidence is to the contrary and So we're in the book of Revelation I think this would be a good time to transition over to everybody's favorite chapter chapter 20 in Revelation talking about the millennial reign of Christ now,

I Don't don't hate me, but I grew up Believing in pre -millennial dispensationalism.

I don't I don't hold that with such a tight grip anymore. I just say hey Pre -millennialism is

Orthodox, right? and I'm aware of some of the things that maybe seem inconsistent and I love how

I've talked with you my friend Trey Fisher and Studying more of the all -millennial framework

I love listening to Jeff Durbin and reading the Puritans to see the arguments for post -millennialism, right?

And so Point is within Orthodoxy you can have those wonderful conversations over coffee at Starbucks or somewhere talking about the nature of this

Millennial reign and I'm a learner at heart at 12 five church. I teach the Orthodox of use

I give a positive presentation when people's like which way do you lean like well? I'm learning. Okay, and so I don't want to disparage the

Orthodox views now We can talk about consistency and have those good robust conversations But full preterism hyper preterism covenant eschatology takes it too far and I believe their approach

Dr. Frost to Revelation 20 this thousand years. They do something unthinkable

They actually make a case that a thousand years actually means less Than a thousand not a picture for more or not how the pre millennial see it as you know

A literal thousand years and so I want to play this next clip Where they speak to this and then

I want your thoughts Sam is claiming to be an all -millennialist and Beale is an all -millennial, right? We heard dawn that the thousand years in Revelation 20

Has to be a symbolic reference to a very very long period of time. Yeah now

I Have my commentary of Beale on Revelation handy. I'm sure if you're somewhere.

Yeah, but in that commentary don't I Cited in both of my books on the

Millennium issue. He says nope Thousand years can be symbolic of a short period of time.

That's great even documents Jews Believing that the Millennium period was 40 years

So they're saying no not more than a thousand but really just a generation 40 years, what do you think about that?

This was another example of Terry picking I have feel Highly recommend that massive tone, but thank goodness for Work like that where he just puts together so much the bibliography alone is worth the price of it

You in a natural commentary Wonderful wonderful book

Here the shurikens were Mike. Let me quote a little bit from from that commentary

He says the apocalypse overall understanding of time Is that the consummation of history is only a little while away whether this is viewed from the vantage point of Christians of Exalted heavenly saints or Satan Just as eminent expectation of the end should motivate

Christians on good earth or on earth to do good work So it also motivates

Satan to rage under evil work that's on page one or eight oh six many says

Where on page 799 that the finding of Satan is inaugurated by the ministry of Christ And will culminate

Between or will culminate just before Christ's final coming.

That's page 79 so That's good. Okay The overall analysis.

This is page 808 supports the figures of reading 1000 is a third power of 10 and if figurative it might represent a long it might represent a long era and At least would signify an ideal epic

If the suffering Saints endure brief trials for 10 days They will receive a reward of a millennial rank 10 times 10 times 10.

I think that's an excellent point That's on page 808 He then states and here this is what

Mike's alluded to on page 826 he says on the other hand That the thousand year thousand years represents mainly the notion of a long time

It's not necessarily the case Since the short time appears to refer to an extremely brief

Transitional period directly following the Millennium and immediately preceding the consummation

You're telling me there's a chance dr. Frost you're not necessarily Go ahead.

I'm sorry See Because they're squeaking out the vote there it's a

What's the phrase of getting blood from a turnip? You're just Squeezing out from GK bill.

Just yeah enough bills point here After he talks about Jewish traditions were from 40 years to 365 thousand years which might conveniently at doors that part

Amen. All right I wrote the material says that bill is not reducing the symbol of a thousand to a lesser period of time or Lesser than a thousand years since his views that a thousand years represents the church and theorem between ascension and the resurrection of the dead

What he's arguing against as being necessary or not necessary Is for example a post -millennial idea that the thousand years could mean hundreds of thousands of years

That's what he's saying He's not saying The thousand years could actually represent 37 years, which is the full

Frederick's view. He's not saying that so when he says the thousand years may represent a short period of time as opposed to a long period of time and He believes that the

Millennium is between ascension and resurrection of the dead Then he obviously doesn't see that as a long period of time when you're talking about four five six thousand years see

But he's not saying that a thousand years can symbolically be reduced to 37 actual years

So that's ridiculous. This scholar's name is leaving this out of here. What's this scholars name again?

Greg Beals, okay. So Greg Beal is not on their side of the no

Preterist, it's just another example. And again They do put the disclaimer to my credit or father, they'll say

DK bill who's in our millennium But nonetheless DK bill even says a

Thousand years can be of a lesser value and doesn't necessarily A long period of time.

I'm like, yeah, he does say that but he's not meaning what you mean by it So I have a question about this can we actually find in Scripture an

Example of a thousand years meaning less than excellent for us. Yeah We're full of scriptura

The heck with these scholars, you know, they didn't write the Bible, you know I'm right.

He's not an apostate. So is there anywhere in the scriptures? Which uses a thousand?

What six seven eight? nine fine Symbolically that in real life of what a thousand years is a metaphor of Is actually reduced in actuality and the answer to that is

No, so this is where I think they're being inconsistent because I've been accused of being solo cretists and I'm over here saying no history is a secondary authority and standard to Scripture, but it's that so low

Mentality so low scripture that says, you know my Bible me under a tree no creed, but Christ now that's the

Church of Christ denomination who says that and Ironically, that's what the full preterists typically say that I'm starting to find when it suits them now

Their origins do tie back to the Restoration Movement, but when I hear Don Preston and Michael Sullivan, you know appealing to these rabbinical scholars and you know

All these things and and I'm over here like but can you show me an example where a thousand is meant to show something less?

Right, you brought up many examples like a cat on a thousand hills All the hills right all of creation belongs to all

All the way to a thousand generate. Well, it's all the generations, right? And so I would like to find an example of when a thousand means that less than a thousand in Scripture.

Yeah Maybe it's in there. I haven't found it yet. No, it's not It's one of those things when

I was starting to sound like the Television news and What about you then?

What about that? What about the time that Joe Biden's is what about the time Donald Trump is and that is the

They get on it with Sam just quotes the scholars and trees that you don't get on you and then they'll turn right around and quote Scholars and all the other stuff.

Well, I'm allowed to quote him. You're allowed to quote him. I can quote him. Okay, great Fantastic. Don't get mad at me the next time

I throw up a scholar Because you're doing it too So but at least the ones that I'm doing it with I happen to agree with ninety eighty nine eighty seven percent of the time whereas you

You mentioned the generations and I stopped back to the That verse please the

SDs one. Well, Isaiah 41 for Where who has performed and done this calling the generations same word in Matthew 24

Calling the generations from the beginning. I the Lord the first and I am with the last

The last was generate. I'm with the first I called them from the first generation

We have them in the Bible and I am with the last I am peace So anyway, I just thought I was sure last doesn't refer to 70 ad

I've actually heard that said to me when I brought that word, but I'm not surprised at this point

So I want to shift gears. I want us to go back to Ecclesiastes, I really like this

Ecclesiastes 1 4 guys listening to Don Preston he said okay now when dr.

Frost read this Jeremiah was taken aback like oh no And I was like really and I went back to watch myself

I did this I was like yay So that's me. I guess being taken aback, but let me play this clip.

No By the way, we're doing great on time We're just a little bit over an hour and I don't think we'll be here for two and a half hours again

So we're doing doing good with services on so let me I'll get an ad home So when truth is on your side,

I don't have to spend a lot of videos That's true yes, they would use that as crew we're going up with a lot of time

They're gonna make 57 videos that I cannot wait Hey, you know what more power to them, and you don't have to apologize to me

I can totally take it so here is them talking about your your take on Ecclesiastes chapter 1 verse 4

Yeah, and I I was literally stunned And I think he was stunned.

Hey, I think Jeremiah was taken a little bit aback I lost the breath in my lungs by Sam's response because I don't think

Jeremiah knew of anybody else taking the position that Ecclesiastes chapter 1 of verse 4 Speaks of the new heaven and the new birth

I'm taking it back again Okay, what's going on Ecclesiastes 1 for dr.

Frost take away Ecclesiastes 1 for Door whole leg door bar

That's not fair you can't just quote Hebrew like that Generation come door how the boat

Generations come or late Generations go and hey dr. Frost. I'm starting to get a feeling why

Michael Sullivan won't debate you by the way go ahead. Yes well You know

Generations come generations go there how out of the earth la

Olam to age Oh my bed, that's all that it says it remains

Let Olam to age It's not infinity here

The alarm does not mean infinity there's no word that Hebrew has for infinity that's Greek not

Hebrew So How do you translate let

Olam well all you got to do is go to a Hebrew lexicon and You'll see the problem there you mean

I don't have to be able to speak It's a big word so alarm

It's what's he saying there well the first part when you read Hebrews Generally try to find is there a parallel Structure going on here.

So generation comes a generation go, but the earth let Olam the earth comes and goes the earth the earth

Generations come generations go the earth stays as a as a constant

Constant so Yeah, that's true that's what's he what's he saying here so what's he beginning out with well, this is history

Generations come generations. No, but the earth is constant You could translate it that way would be perfectly fine

Is it asserting a quality of essence of the materiality of the earth in terms of its infinite

Of capabilities and quantities to last forever and through these

Wax the eloquent on physics right because last night by the way tells us that the earth will win

Because last time we were we were segwaying from Ecclesiastes 1 4 into the new heavens a new earth where there is an eternal

State a new heavens a new earth. And so we're talking about principles, right? um

Essence of creation I was reading Herman Babbitt the other night where he was talking about that the earth is in its essence

Like the Noah's flood, but the essence of that which was what God created

He didn't recreate another heavens and an earth of Noah's flood. It just came together, but God Reshaped it back into what it is

Because you mentioned it being clear Right, there's a constant from man's perspective under the

Sun you can have a generation a generation that continues on and that's what's going on With mankind under the

Sun now when we get asked about you know A new eternal state of affairs we can account for that not in this, you know absurdity of infinite

Very easy, you know an infinite succession of time So anyway,

I just I remember they I think they were trying to pit us against each other and I'm I'm reading into that But nothing you said, you know made me go back like oh my goodness.

I can't believe he went there You don't believe in infinite child molestation. Oh Now, okay.

So this is good This is good explain explain real quick because we're gonna be transitioning into the argument from infinity

But that point about evil going on why is that a problem for full preterism

You know the only response that I get from that from Don Preston when I and I've pressed him on that many times

So Don, do you believe I'll pick up with like the worst thing I can think sure just some Yeah, I've had four, you know my four.

I love my kid so You know, I think

I have the worst and Don his let me give you his response That's an appeal to motion mmm

Yeah, okay, let me Let me tell you another example here because I want people to start hearing

Church of Christ with the full preterist because At least Don Preston that was his background right, so And I'm learning more and more we see that the origins of full preterism is actually tethered with the risk this

Restoration movement the Campbellite movement. And so this is what I get from the Church of Christ is because this is where my

Local community I have to constantly contend for the gospel of grace with Church of Christ.

I will ask somebody You know What if somebody is trusting in Jesus and they desire to be obedient all that Christ has commanded us and they want to be

Baptized in the name of the Father Son and the Holy Spirit and they die in a car crash on the way to getting baptized

You know what? I get told that's an appeal to emotion And I'm like that.

Oh, really I deal with hospice, right? I deal with people that can't get into water Right.

I get to share the good news about Jesus is a perfect Savior And he wants us to put our faith apart from our works in him

And then I get told where you're being disobedient to the gospel No, you're obeying the gospel by faith and that leads to a life of works and fruit.

It's not just an appeal to emotion It's a real -life Example that I actually interact with people that are not able to go into water

So I'm just saying when I hear Don Preston saying that about your point there with an infinite number of evil events happening

That's not just an appeal to motion. That is that's a logical entailment of their system

I'm taking a bath. Oh Calm down, calm down. That's interesting

So you've heard that before when you raise up an objection like that You've heard that so that might be a standard kind of Church of Christ answer

I'm starting to hear a lot more and more similarities between The full preterist and the

Church of Christ and I don't say that as a scare tactic I'm being for realsies and so I just want people to have their discernment up, right?

But we are talking about the problem of infinity right that we brought up last time I want to encourage the audience to go back and listen to that I haven't made

I think a five maybe eight minute video Just of that conversation because you wrote an article on the problem of infinity with full preterism

We but I believe and I love reading this for the first time I was like man if we were to grant full preterism on its own terms

It just seems to implode on itself and with apologetics I want to do worldview versus worldview analysis, and if there's logical contradictions, you're saying well

Yeah, God is omniscient, but then you're gonna have this infinite procreation or infinite time and it starts to erode

Necessary attributes of who God is can't work, right? So let me play this next clip

Where they bring this up they start talking about they quoted you Everything has a telos everything has a purpose and has an end goal and so this was

Don Preston's point now, let's let's look at the issue of Infinity now remember

Sam tells us that the Earth that abides forever Of Ecclesiastes chapter 1 of verse 4 is the new heaven a newer.

Okay now Shame on Sam try to make a big deal about there's a difference between something being eternal and something being infinity

Well, let's let's try that out I'm so pumped. Okay, the new heaven a new earth is eternal it goes on It does not it does not end but It has to have an end because Sam told us quite adamantly

Everything has to have a telos that is his term So, how do you affirm on the one hand that the new heaven a new earth?

Does not end Abides forever and on the other hand in the same identical video you affirm

Everything has to have an end All right, dr.

Frost. You got some explaining to do So in the context of what

I was saying everything has an end if I'm talking about a particular group or category

Has to have an end. I'm not including in that God so Everything is

Don knows this Here's a great example in Jesus spoke of the scriptures to them showing them everything that That Christ had to fulfill according to the system.

Oh So at his resurrection everything that Christ was supposed to do was fulfilled No, everything in up to that point that Christ is you have to read

So Don's trying to make a Logical syllogism the fan says literally everything and that includes

God every spell and malice everything Everything Then what

I'm Then Don's wanting to throw Well, I don't know what he's wanting to show because the absurdity of me if he's taking that literally,

I think I think I Understand the attempted the attempted critique here

So our critique towards full preterism is within created space -time

We say that there's that we're critiquing them saying there's an infinite sequence of events

Created time goes on into infinity. We're saying that is problematic because it compromises

Necessary attributes of God like his omniscience. I would also add his sovereignty, right?

And so like you pointed out last time God knows all of his elect, but then you could always add one

Okay, well now God knows his elect but then you could you could add one right that problem manifests in other ways

Well, God is going to bring everyone into judgment Well, not everyone because you have a set number, but then you could always add one more well that compromises scriptures that uses the word all because you never get all without an end and then you don't get

God knowing all Things omniscience because it's going on forever I think what

Don is doing is saying well, you're contradicting yourself because you believe in the eternal state

And so this is where I want you to key in I think this is where Don just does not understand and I think it's because of his

Church of Christ background I have these same conversations with Church Christ with sovereignty and it's the same old thing.

Well Because I'll press them to be an open theist and a lot of times they say what's that? And I'm like you got to be consistent

I will say I did meet one Church of Christ preacher that was an open theist and he told me it's because Jeremiah I got to be consistent with free will so I think what

I what's important for Don Preston this go -around explain the difference between infinity with created time versus Eternality, right?

What is eternal in terms of a qualitative different state of affairs? well the difference is

We Is the quality not the quantity the quality that we're talking about now again

Don wants to make this sound like That I've invented this argument or something.

No, this goes back to Augustine the Greeks with Aperon that was the

Greek word for unbounded or infinite and they hated that Many philosophers explain that the idea of concepts of infinity was like a wrecking ball of the

Greek Philosophy it just destroyed everything wherever it went because it because it just it still does

If you look up the struggling that mathematicians and philosophy of math Again several

Works that I have here to talk about a list. No, so a list the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet

That's a symbol for Infinity They can't

You'll rack your mind if you start going at it. Well Augustine the church fathers the theologians

They didn't want to apply that to God Because that's not true of God because the revelation of God says

I know all things from beginning To end God has not learned anything aka said diddy go ahead continue.

It's not yeah There's nothing that God you can teach him anything

There's nothing about any subject that he does not Exhaustively know everything about everything about everything that can be known about that Do you think an important point here is when we're talking about?

Eternity we're not talking about time. We're talking about something that Time is that time is ended.

So there's no. Oh, I'm not talking about full predators and me today I'm talking about Augustine who believed in an end of time

But yet we have eternity so eternity cannot be time constraint So we must be talking about something else.

Well, what is that? Well, if I were God, I would explain it to you, but it's incomprehensible but at least we can make the distinction so as to avoid the contradictions when we're presenting the gospel to the world and Mathematicians do this scientists do this.

We all do this except bull fretters But here they do allow for paradox in the same way now the

King James Version gets into a little issues where in Psalm 147 5 is as great as our

Lord and abundant in power his understanding is infinite and Translate that word infinite, but that's not what they meant

By it now the Masoretic text just simply means it's without Number.

Yeah. In other words, I can't comprehend it because the next parallel verse say or rather the next parallel or the next verse before it says

He determines the numbers of the stars. He gives to all of them their own name

Well, that can't be infinite right Now there's a set number of stars and he knows each one of them by name

So we don't use the word infinite in translation anymore It's the word that got dejected because of these theological issues

But the King James Version translators were thinking great and infinite in his power, you know how he was seeing that infinite

They were thinking eternal. Yep, but some theologians came along again I Love how you're making the big distinction.

We're talking about quality versus quantity Quantity belongs with the created realm right sequences of events

We have a past present in future when we're talking about eternity We're talking about quality something that transcends this created world a place where there is no time right now

I this this transitions perfectly to what Don Preston said when he said this

I Was taken aback when he said this next point I'm gonna skip to video clip number 11 because he starts defining what we mean by Omniscience and so I want to play this clip real fast

But this this is something I feel like I can speak to and I definitely want to go back and forth with you a little But listen to Don Preston said what we're doing what we are doing to God's omniscience

I've read some of the go back and forth and back and forth and back and forth I knew when

I read Sam Frost's argument on The infinity argument

It struck me exactly what Van Til was saying Which we're gonna discuss here in a moment

Van Til Cornelius Mantle and Gordon Clark, but listen to what Don Preston says next you are a questioning and you

You are going outside the bounds of the characteristics of God and it's like I suggested last week according to Sam Frost and according to Jeremiah The only way that you can affirm the omniscience of God is by saying that God's knowledge is limited

All right, let me let me get first cracks at this dr. Frost so So if I'm understanding

Don Preston He's heard us make the case that God knows the beginning from the end

We're quoting a number of verses by the way And he's like, okay, so your understanding of God's Omniscience is actually limiting

God's knowledge to this created plane and that's not true Well, we're affirming is that God has exhaustive knowledge of all of his creation

God sees all of when God said let there be he sees the Beginning just as well as the end.

It's a sure thing to happen. This is called the sovereignty of God Okay, even before he created anything even before he created anything, right?

You have the triune council and I'm actually about to make a point for the triune God this being very important But God not only has an exhaustive knowledge of this temporal creative world, but he has had an eternal absolute self -knowledge

That can only be grounded in the Trinity. And so this is something that Not only

Don Preston failed to account for he simply assumed what we meant and we're just talking about an exhaustive knowledge here on Earth in the universe, but we're also affirming that God has an eternal

Knowledge of himself and that's so important. So I do want to do a shameless book book plug real quick So check it out

You might you might not but just look away real quick Thank you, and they can use that against us to say that And I'll be taken aback when that's a little bit full preterism

So this is this is a really good book. I even think you would like this. Dr. Frost. Bye No, I'm gonna get it.

Thank you for recommending. Yeah. Oh, it's it's incredible. It's by far the hardest read I've ever had I've read chapter 9

Multiple times because it makes the philosophical case that God must be one in three in in the way that the scripture has revealed

It and so it goes down to how do we ground epistemology? well God must be omniscient and that omniscience has to exist before the creative world and so it and so what we're getting at is

Omniscience talking about knowledge knowledge in this in Bosterman's book here

Let me hold this back up. This is by BA Bosterman the Trinity and the vindication of Christian paradox

God must be personal and so personhood entails other persons and so for God's omniscience

It has to be in a context of at least two persons, but what kind of context?

facilitates that Person one in person two well it can't be merely a by an entity because that would be in an impersonal void an impersonal context and then it results into absurdity because essentially this by an entity would have the problem of induction just like humankind would and so we realize you have a three person

Triune God and that Facilitates the relationship between the first person and second person in what context do they relate to another?

Well, it's in the context of another person and so it's beautiful because this book illustrates how the

Triune God is the necessary precondition for our human experience if you try to add more persons to To God like a quadrinity plus it doesn't work.

You don't have this perfect balance of Father sons relationship being always facilitated.

This is perichoresis essentially by the the Holy Spirit So all that just now good.

Well, no, I think my theology is kicking in Gordon Clarke's whispering in your ear of that.

Yeah Father son, so you have a son. I'm a father

And I know my son my son knows me, but I don't know what he's saying. I don't

That's that's very limited. So how does the father know the son and the in the Trinity spirit?

right If the father knows what the son is thinking all the time and the son knows what the father's thinking all

Without a without a how so I can know what my son is back and look at his face today

But I don't really I don't exhaustively know my intuition.

I might like it. So why? Because I don't have that link of Psychically feeding my mind and all constantly what my son is thinking.

Well, God does Father knows what the son son knows what the fuck how they do Spirit one

God and how does the son relate to the spirit in the context of the father? And so that's why the

Trinity grounds Eternal omniscience. It's itself. How will we know

God when Jesus prays father? And when does this happen in 70 80 father that they may be one as you and I are one

What will that mean that will be me as a creature? Perfectionist creatures will think the thought and mind of God as my capacity to do so in perfection

I Will know the will of the father and I will do the will of the father without a skip

It will be a desire of my heart I will be in such unity with his mind and thought to the extent that I'm a creature to my capacity effect

But I will know now does Did that happen in 70 80?

Hey, that's Jesus's prayer. You were you were sounding a little bit like Vantille there for just a split second.

No, well I'm So the reason why we're bringing up Gordon Clark and Cornelius Vantille Has actually really liked how?

Michael Sullivan brought up this controversy, but He didn't quite get it right and I was

I was so taken aback when he said this because I was like I Thought I thought he would have had this tethered down a little bit but you and I have talked

Since then and so I want to play this clip Where Michael tries to pit me and you against each other because he's like wait a second.

Dr Sam Frost should be Gordon Clark Pro Gordon Clark and Jeremiah should be pro

Cornelius Vantille and these guys don't get along and it has to do with God's Omniscience and not being able to know in infinity

So, let me play this clip and I want you to talk a little bit about the truly what the true controversy was

Between these two guys. This is Gordon Clark Alright, and and this is something

I was trying to explain Now I've got no comment from Matheson. I got no comment from Gentry and I got no comment from Gary DeMar I pressed all of them as soon as I saw that they were

Endorsing Sam. I said well Sam's making this Gordon Clark infinity argument

And you guys are supposed to be Vantille Presuppositionalists now, I know this is kind of not your circle, but within reformed circles there

I mean these guys because I just want to pause real quick and say that's not done circle.

That's not done circle He may still be Church of Christ leaning That's at least his background which makes sense because he's a full preterist and we're not just simply trying to poison the well

I'm wanting people to understand that is the roots and Origins of full preterism and so it's it amazes me that reform guys like Mike Sullivan have bought into this stuff

But like you said, this is not Don Preston's circle. So we'll let him continue Well debate and fight to the death.

All right over apologetics the presuppositional is in the Gordon Clark view Well done

Reformed folks who aren't even preterists outside of the preterist debate

Just I'm starting to see a pattern by the way preterism out of the debate We formed guys that were van

Till when Clark brought up this argument that God couldn't know You know anything that doesn't have an end or anything that continues on Van Till said whoa,

I've got problems with this guy even being ordained in the Presbyterian churches Like this is this is a heretical view

That tickled Don Preston a little bit Hey, did you see the pattern that I'm catching on to?

Yeah, he's what Don Preston and Michael Sullivan They're just they're pick pick pick pick pick pick and then they're trying to pit us all against each other

Where we're all on the same side on the major issues. Oh, yeah, totally

Van Till would affirm with the Westminster Confession of Faith chapter 3

Section 3 that states that God predestined all angels and men upon which number can neither be increased nor Diminished so both

Clark and Van Till Thought Westminster Confession of Faith guys would both affirm that statement

In fact, I have proof of that, but you can read it yourself. Here's another book plug If you don't have this hands down This book has been endorsed by Jay Adams John Frames Kenneth Gary Talbot.

This was my mentor Kenneth Talbot the late Kenneth Talbot David and Gelson and that's this book here called the

Presbyterian philosopher by Doug Duma. This is the only known biography of Gordon Clark and this guy spent years researching talking to family members his daughters

Traveling to the various areas with Clark Todd and everything years research he spends a good deal of this going into the

Issues going on there. None of what's had anything to do with what Mike is not even remotely touching

Touching them. Wait, but let me read you a little. Oh, yeah. Go ahead. Go ahead the last part of this book here was

The last name of the chapter my good friend personal reconciliation With Cornelius Van Till so Carl FH Henry.

He's a giant in my book Clark Van Till Alvin Plantinga met in Grand Rapids, Michigan for an unpublicized dinner

After a two or three hour dialogue Henry did not provide the date or even the year for the meeting

But judging from his content about Van Till He was a little past this time.

So it was somewhere 1980. But anyway Van Till Wrote the

God of Hope sermons and addresses with the copyright and he made a note Gordon H Clark your brother

In our common Savior Cornelius Van Till you which he also wrote another note to Gordon Clark Van Till's the reformed pastor in the defense of Christianity He wrote a note in that giving it to Gordon saying the

Gordon H Clark from Cornelius Van Till your brother in Christ Jesus our Lord they

John frame and everyone has recognized that Clark and Van Till Clark was a more of a clear

American writer Van Till's not American Until that right Clark is very clear very syllogistic very clear in definitions in his terms

Van Till Kantian he's using these constantly and he doesn't explain himself all the time either

There's sometimes you've got to read Van Till and then you're like, what? You gotta read some

Greg Bonson Well, well, I don't even know the Bonson does the buzzes and criticizes this is the greatest, you know

Job, and what else? I'm not gonna say anything Well, it's like well of the day.

Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. I'd say this is where They were saying Clark and Van Till were saying the same

They're both Presuppositional with our control recognizes that he faces and recognized that both of them were coming at the issue the same way

But they were they were coming at it from these two different Totally different perspective and that's where it crossed.

But when you start breaking all that down 90 % of what they were saying was it's the same.

It's just the way they were saying Sure, absolutely. I'm frame who's a student of Cornelius Van Till knew him personally.

I sat in the office of dr Calvin and listened to him explain this and said that this is what this this is what was going on with them and Clark and Here's a frame to he's a big fan of Van Till First and foremost, but he does say second to none is

Gordon H Clark to Van Till These are two of the most important thinkers of the 20th century and nobody's even come close to these two guys

I totally agree. So what Mike's trying to do here is Ignorant for lack of a better word.

Hey, you apologize right now. You know, I have to say to that I'd like to take this chance to apologize

Absolutely, nobody. Oh I Bet I play that a few more times.

I just I love it I played that clip because my friend Trey Fisher, I blame him

I was talking with him and he that's the first thing he said and I was like, I'm definitely gonna bring that up but you are highlighting the point that Michael Sullivan he said the whole point of Van Till saying that Gordon Clark shouldn't be ordained as a

Presbyterian pastor is because he was ordained by the way. Yeah well He's making it sound like your argument of the problem of infinity is the thing that while Van Till wouldn't allow

Didn't want Gordon Clark to be a part of the Presbytery And it's I mean, is that is that a strong word to say that this is just ignorant?

Yes, but it's true and we're not trying to poison the well A little bit of my study into this.

I called up my friend Eli Iyala at revealed apologetics Which by the way you were on there,

I think over a year ago talking about hyperpreterism So I'm indebted to Eli Because I watched

I watched that and I reached out to you But I called up Eli and he just said a lot of that like you were saying come at different angles

The the conversation was about you know, what does Univocal language and knowledge look like along with analogical and so when

I hear Michael Sullivan trying to poison the well if I can look back on him

I'm always doing is trying to pit Gordon Clark Van Till against each other And that's what he's trying to do with us and he just missed the mark in a big way

Do you want any closing thoughts on that before we get to our last two big points? I highly recommend that you read

Cornelius Van Till and Gordon a close anything that you find with their name on it bias You'd be an idiot if you did

Yes, I'm a big giant huge Gordon Clark Vance, but I can say I endorse Cornelius Van Till Don't have same here.

And you know what? I think you said this earlier neither Gordon Clark or Cornelius Van Till would agree in any way shape or form with what

Michael Sullivan and Don press Even remotely close The whole basis of election

Mike claims to be a reformed Dalvin The whole basis of predestination is it in the

Westminster Confession faith again? It's faith is so plainly that it's amazing to me that Mike hangs on this moniker that he wants to be reformed and everything but the entire basis is

Pre -death of predestination and election is stated in Westminster Confession 3 for these angels and the chapters on predestination these angels and men thus predestinated and for ordained are particularly and Unchangeably designed so that their numbers so certain and definite that it cannot be either increased or diminished that's the basis of election because God knows beginning to end all in between and On that basis.

He has elected out of a finite number of believers This is what gets

Calvinist in trouble Well, it doesn't because the Arminianists as you pointed out earlier before the so they do the same thing

So they have a finite Charles Wesley doesn't have an infinite of variety the sinners pack in heaven for infinity

Nobody does here's the point. No one does no one has ever said anything like this

Except the full predators and that's to say 70 ad at all cost

Even to the point of the third of these and not paradox, which can be rubbed out with a little logical

This is an antinomy, right? It's a logical contradiction Contradictive right, you know what that deserves.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and see what this does. Oh Had to get a little bit of applause in there

Okay Yeah, this is my this is my first setup with a live and I'm loving it

So thank you for being the first guest on the apologetic dog with a cam live because I like you said

I'll work out some of the kinks here Maybe I won't be the last guest that you have can have an infinite amount.

Oh My goodness, that's funny Okay, last two major points and we talked about this a little bit

Earlier because the rest of Don and Michaels second response video they did to What first one was a little bit over an hour the second one they pushed a little bit further into an hour and a half

And it's because they talked a lot about Isaiah chapter 65 and they talked a lot about Daniel chapter 12

So dr. Frost I want to play this next clip From Michael Sullivan and Don Preston about Isaiah 65.

So if you would Here in a moment. I want you to tell us why this is such a favorite

Chapter for full predators. So let's listen to what they have to say. Let's look at this concept of The new do we have a new earth which

Sam puts too much emphasis on And throughout the entirety of his presentation.

He came back to it time and time again, you know, even if not in -depth He would refer to the new heaven a new earth well, hmm, let's do

I mean obviously you and I could do a Multi -week exegesis of actually they could go on into infinity exegesis for infinity say a 65

It absolutely astounds me how commentators ignore what

Isaiah 65 actually says Let me

Lord, I think Don Preston's Church of Christ is coming out here because right when

I talk when I talk with Church Christ I get accused of Jeremiah You're ignoring the simple reading of the verse and what they're talking about is all their little proof text acts 238

Acts 22 16 Mark 16 16 1st Peter 3 21 Galatians 3 27 I know all the verses and what

I have to remind them is I agree with what Scripture says I disagree with the Church of Christ interpretation of those verse of Interpretation.

What does the context look like? What is the grammatical historical method of interpretation? And you know what this is this is how they bring up the white flag when they just say oh you're just explaining the

Way the clear meaning or the clear reading of the text. Well when they start saying that they've lost

They realize they can't go the distance. And so this is what I hear Don Preston saying is all these commentators

They just basically ignore what Isaiah 65 actually says and so I want you to tell us

Why is it Isaiah chapter 65 is such a favorite chapter for the full preface?

Well, did you have more of his of what he was gonna say? Okay, they literally talked about this for so long.

I wanted them just to Mention the chapter and I want to go back and listen to all the things that they they bring out

I don't know if you've written a commentary if it was just on Daniel 12 They they take you they rake you over the coals.

Dr. Frost. They're in a major portion We're really all both videos, but why is a 65 so important thing that I was expecting people to run around Mike Mike has his understanding that I believe that one day we'll all be moved

That is that is weird. I That may be a conversation for another time

Yeah, it's It's one of these verses it's obviously it's the verse

From which in the New Testament the phrase new heavens and new earth and second Peter Revelations, it's obviously this is where it's getting it from.

I would argue 2nd Corinthians chapter 6 to behold all things are new creation

Well Heck now I'm thinking at the end of it into the letter to Galatians neither circumcision or uncircumcision matters.

What matters is new creation So What is new creation?

Well, this is the text the location where It is the source and Isaiah.

He does it in Isaiah 11 and Isaiah 2 and there's several other places where he picturing this idyllic

Almost utopian kind of kind of world, but here's some That every recognizes in the text number one.

He's his language is clearly Deuteronomistic in other words, he's using the language of Deuteronomy in terms of blessing

Yes, so what happens to Israel if what would happen if Israel obeyed God and the great vast majority of them were

Circumcised in heart Following the spirit following Torah written on their hearts following the whole thing to face the people.

What did God say that he would do? spiritually bless them or physically bless them physically bless them their land

Their enemies all around them would be at peace the land they'd have so much food surplus

They wouldn't know what to do with it They would be they would be the lender rather than the borrower they would they would be economically so Fit that all the other nations around them would say hey, let's join up with these guys.

Their God is Just blessing them. Well, okay, you got to enter into our covenant do what our God says

Join in on the blessings in the hallelujah fun time You know, not just the

Gnostic blessings. Yeah, not just the Gnostic blessings It was actually I meant blessed Proto not with me

And again Jewish commentary which means that God is fully and entirely capable of creating and causing such a

Blessing to come upon a particular nation that there's nothing in creation from him

Not doing and causing grass to sprout up in the desert God most certainly and he says he'll do this or he can make it go dry.

No rain. No drought I'll make it dry. You guys won't be able to plant you won't be able to do anything.

The ground will be rock hard The front will be just beat down. Okay, we call those droughts

So these blessings and cursing are quite the creational material in relationship

So Isaiah is seeing this vision where the blessings of God are in such an extent

That you'll build a house and never again Well, there'll be anyone that comes in plunders or does any of this kind of stuff

But he's seeing it very fully from the standpoint of Genesis. Another thing is Genesis chapter 2.

That's At random hey

Fame I just picked it up looked at it and it's Genesis 2 Deuteronomy 28 blessings and cursing.

This is Isaiah. This is the language of Isaiah every commentary. They all say the same Because it's obvious in the

Hebrew when you read it, it's quite obvious. So what is Isaiah seeing? He's seeing an idyllic picture But yet they see the word

Death and it says The voice of well,

I'll go to that verse But then it says ever more so will be an infant of days there nor an old man that's about to write his days.

Oh see Yes, it's still gonna be Okay, and they're and they're procreating, okay, that's another

Procreation that so notice that all of a sudden spiritual death goes out the window all of a sudden

Now, okay, that's great death will be their physical actual literal death But it says here that no one no else shall be heard.

No more the voice of reaping or the voice of crying hmm Now notice they don't literalize that they spiritualize that part because covenantally

We're not laboring under the burden of knowing that when we die Do we go to the netherworld of spook world until you know, we're resurrected as souls of ghosts out of the netherworld

Let me let me pause you real quick because I like what you're doing. You're showing an inconsistency on their part now

I do remember listening to them. They actually accused you of being inconsistent in this passage

Do you have any idea of where they were accusing you of being inconsistent in Isaiah 65?

because I'm actually looking forward to the fulfillment of no more weeping and no more crying and What they're saying is an infant of days nor shall an old man not fill out of faith.

I don't think Isaiah is saying Oh, yeah, there's gonna be procreation and death going on in the new heaven I think he's saying the exact opposite of that He's Speaking in terms of the covenant that he knows blessings and cursings of Mosaic Covenant So those are the terms and he's speaking of a time that God is going to create where those terms are in full force

Towards blessing towards the people of Israel so much so that an infant will be a hundred be thought of a hundred years old now

That's hyperbolic. That's poetic is he saying there?

But no matter how you get around it it is an idyllic Consideration, isn't it?

No matter what you do with this text. He is speaking of a time That in his day is nowhere near being found with Assyrians and Babylonians and workers of idols and their houses are being overran and they don't have any rain and he's peering into the future and he sees the

Exact opposite of that because I remember the point. I remember Michael Sullivan as he was reading verse 25 the last verse that says the wolf and the lamb shall graze together

He was talking about how there's this spiritual peace going on after 70

AD with covenant Israel and you have And so my yeah, I'm just saying that it's so interesting how they're going to make this physical death

Yeah, or do you have no more spiritual death or no more fit see that that created a problem

Anyway, you read it and we're picking and choosing what you get to put in there literally much don't get to put in there physically

So that to me became arbitrary That's just simply on the basis of by coming at this the post -millennial or amillennial or full

Fredericks And then I'll read what I want to read the majority of commentators Understand that what

Isaiah is seeing is here is from his perspective of blessings and cursings and ultimate realization of Edenic Blessing what the

New Testament does Understanding through Jesus Christ is a better new heavens and earth that Isaiah even in business

He he takes it even farther and says what Isaiah saw he wasn't seeing far enough

There will be no more death. There'll be no more pain. There'll be no more suffering. There'll be no more

It's and this is the spirit of what Isaiah was seeing what they want to do is go back and literalize a great deal of poetry

That's going on with Isaiah. There's definitely poetry here. Yeah, so dr Frost you gotta see it from the perspective of Jesus Christ But he's going to usher in creation unlike anything you've asked for or imagined or could even fathom

That's how great they write they seem to really disparage you last time when you said well just look out the window and you see all this kind of Death going on and you know, it's it's kind of like what what we were talking about earlier

Appealing to emotion and we talked earlier. Yeah, that's right We were talking on the phone earlier.

Like I I deal with hospice. Like I really do see death literally every day and Just for me an emotional personal standpoint.

There is no comfort in Trying to explain a realized eschatology.

It's exactly the opposite I want to tell them about a future blessed hope that God is going to restore all things

And so I don't get too far off into that, but I do look to Isaiah 65

It's funny because they don't mind saying this one the first time I've ever read through Isaiah 65 It wasn't even a question in my mind that he wasn't painting a picture of what is to come

I believe that is what Peter at 2nd Peter 3 is talking about And you know, you this might be a good time to bring this up.

It's interesting how Yeah, they might confine disagreements between post -millennialists and all -millennialist on that But they will ride the coattails of like pastor

Jeff Durbin sermon on the new heavens Oh new earth almost to say see he's on our side and Jeff has spent a lot of time

Distancing himself from full preterism and you've actually had talks with him about that. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah, we're planning on doing it So I talked with Jeff Recently, I think he's in Ireland right now

And we were planning on doing a show mid -october He wants to do this because he's seeing this but I tipped him off to a couple of things and he's already followed

Oh, yeah, which by the way, they're trying to ride on the coattails and Jeff Durbin came to a conference of ours

I think I was it was a debunked on Preston debate With James B.

Jordan that we hosted there that our church posted Back in 2006 or something and And I didn't know

Jeff was in the crowd at that time that he was he wasn't Yeah, you know Jeff Durbin that everybody knows now

Wasn't like this yeah, yeah, I mean Jeff's a fireball my friends watching and But hey, is he

Jeff and I or me or you do we agree on every dot no Of course, it wouldn't be any fun if we did

So, you know, well, you know somebody's got to be wrong but see here's the

Other sort of that and that's where they'll make these consistent and consistent kinds of things, but I can account for all of that because Blown from every wind of doctrine not grazed into this perfect man speaking one thing of one mind in the unity of the faith

Until we all arrive for the perfect man My answer to that is we're not there yet that you say that we are

Mike and Don you say that we are there. So why are we fighting about these things? I can account for that your view can't

I Can't it's very easy to I I'm amazed that there's not more disagreement among.

I'm amazed that the churches aren't killing each other Hi, dr. Ava. We're not we are coming up on the two -hour mark.

Yeah, and Yeah, yeah, well we're coming to our mark and you know what

I'm Perfectly happy about it because we're getting to cover some good content and I've had so much positive feedback from our last

Engagement together talking about these things and yeah It seems like all the full predators came out of the shadows and into the

YouTube comment section Which I by all means do it That's why the comment sections are there and I I learn things from when people bring up objections

So I'm actually like I'm reading, you know, I mean, it doesn't mean I'm going to Comment on everyone no matter how many times

Michael Sullivan will say Jeremiah I'm gonna press your car your conscience on first Peter 315.

I don't think Peter is saying that I'm supposed to answer every spam Comment on YouTube, but in our mind in the context is as people are asking me

Why do I live my life the way that I do? That's the primary defense for the hope that lies within us and that's a future hope by the way

So you don't have to answer all 15 points of my immediately and if you don't answer in the next 30 minutes

That you're a coward of spineless and you don't have any answers. Yeah, and apparently he's pressing my conscience really hard You know what?

Keep doing it. When did he come to Holy Spirit? He's prayed for I I'll let this out because it's public and I've let it out before Mike's actually prayed for my death

Because my spiritual I follow no my dad my actual death Because he confronted

David Hilton and two weeks later or a month later or something David Unfortunately, he's in heaven with the

Lord And I happened I talked with children Dr.

Calvin he had relations with the Whitfield seminary But he died like two months later after Michael confronted him about something.

This was Michael story I don't know this but this is what he felt I can prove this. This is then Michael has told me and I left

Hyperfretterism and then Michael said just be careful watch out because you know, God can't you know,

I'm like what? Are you threatening my death or something? Because well, I'm just saying, you know, what happened today, you know,

I thought so that's Ten years ago. Yeah, I want to tell

Michael. I'm still here. I'm healthy as a whore my health is Fantastic, I'm not dead praise

God Anyway, that's how bizarre Michael Sullivan is but I did want to close with the great

John Calvin on Daniel 12 very quickly before I do want you when we do close

I do want you to read that quote because if you still have a little bit of time I wanted you to make did you want to say anything else to Isaiah 65 and I do want to talk about Daniel 12

Even though we're going over the two -hour mark. It's worth it in my opinion yeah, Isaiah 65 is

It's in covenant terms as best as the terms that he can use to describe what it is that he thinks

I think it's the same thing with Ezekiel. I don't think he's equal simple Good reading of Ezekiel is that if they were you turned from the land in repentance with circumcised hearts and regenerate

But this is what they could have Just not ever realized but it's kind of this vision it this is this is if you obeyed

God If you returned from exile and you obeyed God There'll be not an infant that lives among you that won't die until a hundred if you obeyed

God There won't be a man. He's considered a curse. He lives to the age of 100. That's what he's saying.

It's the Create a new heavens in the new earth for you. It'll be the blessings of the

Lord Well, they didn't that's that's all picking that up. They didn't it wasn't realized the temple didn't come back as Ezekiel said

It wasn't this full -blown thing. In fact, they never had a king except Herod He's not a

Jewish, you know, he's kind of like half Jewish with it. So Jesus comes into this picture and says it'll never be realized under that covenant

I'm gonna take you up a notch if you follow me, it'll be realized and never be right

See that's what's going on there Yeah So the failure of Isaiah to realize new heavens and newer for covenant blessing in terms of Deuteronomy In terms of restoring

Eden, but I don't want Eden restored. I Don't want to go back to Eden.

Why in the world would I want that? I want a new heavens in the new earth where there's no doubt hanging out saying did

God say I don't Thank you. I don't want that Where there's no male female

Duke Greeks what we're not those things are gone. Yeah, we're following God Yeah in in your galaxies and cosmos galore that the satellites have not even

Dentists they don't even touch so I I think about this every morning. I wake up and just suppress it fresh there

It's a constant thing I think Paul was constantly and Peter at the end of his letter as we look forward to a new heavens

Think on these things brothers whatsoever is lovely whatsoever Think on these things where he is at the right hand of the father.

Yeah, think on this. I look forward to it. I This is why I moan and groan through the life of church that I do and you put up with pot

You put up with why because there's a better way to the eternal glory that's coming through all of them

It's worth it. I labor is not in vain Right. It's it's worth it So stay to it courage one another bring each other in courage, but Because Jesus has triumphed and I can get through this

And Paul hanging on prison walls, you know, he's locked up in these Roman prisons and he's saying rejoice And again,

I say what he has a vision of new heavens and new earth. He'll suffer. Yeah, you know what? This is worth it.

I'm not giving up God because I'm suffering for for what I'm gonna know. I'm gonna get Dr. Frost thank you.

Yeah. No. No, I appreciate I want to amen after every time and no I think what you highlighted.

Well is the full preterist has a literalistic Interpretation of Isaiah 65 and it's not not being sensitive to the language and the analogy of faith and So thank you because I wanted

I wanted to equip people and make them aware that Isaiah 65 is a pet

Chapter for full preterism and as we begin to wind down I want to play my last clip that they that they quote from Daniel chapter 12 verse 7

And so I'm wanting you to speak directly to verse 7 But then I also want you to talk about why

Daniel chapter 12 as a whole is also a favorite chapter of full preterist So here's my last clip that I have

Daniel 12 verse 7 The resurrection and the tribulation are not fulfilled until Or they are fulfilled during this three and a half year when the power of the

Holy People is completely shattered Absolutely, you have to have old covenant Israel present to be judged before the resurrection

Tribulation and the new heaven the new earth arrived So, please explain why he's appealing to verse 7 the way that he is to say that that can only be

Reconciled with full preterist. I'm just let us know some of the issues what he is saying how it's in it

How it should be properly understood well What he's doing there and again,

I'm gonna pull the consensus, you know Guard again that the key that he's talking about Is in Titus Tiffany I'm in the vast majority of commentary there and here he's saying that the power of the

Holy People is going to be broken by the king and that's going to be the way that it goes and That that's referring to Rome I just don't see it there.

So here's without going into that amount of detail that it takes to go into in Into Daniel and you know about Dan Daniels got these multiple interpretations on it, but I do follow the consensus of critical scholars on that matter

But I believe Daniel was written by a guy named Daniel When he wrote it under Nebuchadnezzar and my commentary

Daniel unplugged they go into all of this great detail Here's another case where we have legitimate interpretations and this that and the other but again for the full preterist it must there's no choice

You have to so there's no wiggle room. There's no way around it. There's no can't do anything there

That's that's cultic again That's it You are not free to say anything else.

You can't you can't say anything else. Hey, did you just say cultic? Yes. Well, I just want to follow that up with Okay, go ahead

I'm sorry Now That gets me every time

I hear that John Calvin, so that's that's that it and they'd like to go to 12 1 but 12 1, you know

There's no chapter markers or anything So 12 1 is followed by 11 45 and it says when the wind the key he shall come to nothing

Well watching because at that time Michael or what King is he talking about? so again

Most of all interpretations perfectly legitimate, but the full preterist doesn't have a choice

He doesn't have a choice here There's no he can't consider anything else.

So it must be the way every scholar would look at him So number one you damn strong.

I Don't have a choice I mean goodness gracious, that's the end of that, but I'll let

Calvin settle the matter here. He says on chapter 12

Oh on this verse. I Get to it on my commentary.

I've got the Baker Baker this commentary. Oh Yeah, the angel and verse 2 and many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth

Delaware the angel seems here to mark a transition from the commencement of the preaching of the gospel to the final day of the

Resurrection without sufficient occasion for for why does he pass over the intermediate time?

During which many events might be the subject of prophecy He unites these two subjects very fitly and properly connecting the salvation of the church with the final

Resurrection and the second coming of Christ Wheresoever we may look around us. We never meet with any source of salvation on earth

Yeah, the angel announces the salvation of all The elect they are most miserably oppressed on all sides and wherever they turn their eyes they perceive nothing but confusion

Hence the hope of the promised salvation could not be conceived by man Before the elect raised their minds to the second coming of Christ It is just as if the angel had said

God will be a constant preserver of his church even unto the end perfect If you want to argue against scholars you want to argue and Donald say there's no scholar has ever

Sam has insisted. Well, here's here's one of the best ones that moves Western civilization

John Calvin whether you like him or whether you don't like him. It doesn't matter now. I'll say this because Grammatically Again, here's one of those areas of interpretation where they don't have a choice, but I do simply on the basis of grammar

The Hebrew grammar is at that time Michael shall stand and then it also adds again concerning at that time

Your people will be delivered will deliver from what will deliver from the hand of this evil oppressing team Is what they're going to be delivered from well, what's going to happen to these level delivered people?

Many of them the ones that are delivered shall sleep in the dust of the earth So that tells me right there that they're going to sleep

They're going to be delivered and they're going to sleep in the dust of the earth And then they shall awake will win

It does not say at that time If it had said and at that time many shall speak of the bit.

Well now you got a case, but it doesn't so Commentators understand that what they're seeing here to the generation that Daniel's talking to I believe it's 2nd century

BCE generation he's talking to Are given the hope of the promise that if they stand covenantly faithful to God in spite of persecution

Their names are written in the book of life and they shall be raised when the resurrection occurs But it doesn't tell me when the resurrection is going to occur.

In other words, if they promise This is the promise Stay faithful to me. Yeah, but what if they what if they kill my family?

What if they stay faithful to me? You'll get your family back Stay faithful to me and what's

Daniel about going into the lion's den coming out of it Going into the fiery furnace and not being cut not a hair on your head

And what does Jesus say about persecution? They will persecute you in one city and they will kill some of you but not a hair on your head shall perish

What if they're gonna kill me then a hair on my head is gonna pair. You're not hearing what

I'm saying I will raise you from the dead not a hair on your head will fit Yeah, they're gonna kill your body

And I'm saying I'm gonna raise you from the dead not a hair that's Daniel Daniel preaching hope against those that would fold and yield to the

Hellenistic Greeks or to Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon or to woke culture or to politics and you yield because you don't want to get

Persecuted Jesus saying follow me and I'll make it worth your while But if you deny me,

I'll deny you before my father in heaven That's what's going on there. And so the promises of resurrection of the dead now

This deals in every generation and this preachers and this is the gospel This works with post -millennialism this works with all millennialism

It works with pre -millennialism, but it doesn't work with post -proletarism because they don't have a choice

Let's see their hamstrung they're in a box and they can't get out but they want everybody else to respect their box, but their box destroys all these other considerations and Interpretations it destroys them.

So what dialogue am I to have with you when you've destroyed everything that I believe in it.

I Can't I want to I appeal to Mike Sullivan Don Preston repent

Get before the Lord kneel before God your maker and ask him

Lord I consider that I may be wrong if I'm wrong. Tell me that I'm wrong And listen to other voices listen to other considerations as I do

I listen to others and I had to submit my mind that I was wrong Like praise

God, I walked away from it It's not easy to do Dr.

Frost, thank you. Thank you so much. Yeah Well, I am too and I've learned a lot from you

And like I said, I was a I was a diehard pre -millennial Dispensationalist for a long time and it was a you have to forgive me for that by the way

But no, you condemn all of them and all they're all going to hell. They're just in spaces. They're going to hell

You still talk to probably a great deal of them. Oh, yeah Well, I really like John MacArthur John MacArthur that was kind of the study

Bible that I had and I learned I learned his eschatology very well and as I Grew in the faith.

I started reading other scholars that disagreed I started listening to the reasons why and I kind of narrowed it down to three

Orthodox perspective pre -millennialism I'm sure you got some different kinds with his story Then you have all millennialism and it's funny

I used to think the craziest of all of them was post -millennialist So I'll start reading some of the Puritans listening to guys like Jeff Durbin and Doug Wilson It's like you know what?

I love what they're saying in terms of this expanding Kingdom now, you can have that discussion, right?

I bet Wilson may be half crazy, but I don't Doug Wilson Douglas Wilson.

Hey, I'm looking About all those records. Yes. Well, I want to I want to end on a high note

Not only are you looking to be on apologia soon with Jeff Durbin talking about hyperpreterism

But my friend Trey Fisher and myself we're gonna be on cultish soon

We're going to reform con and we're gonna have some booths where hopefully I wish I could join you there Oh, man, that would be so much fun.

We are doing two episodes with cultish. So please be on the lookout We're gonna be talking about the cult of the

Church of Christ and then we're doing a follow -up episode on full preterism And so we're gonna be talking about this unicorn of full preterism

How just it's it seems like you know, it's it's not real and you maybe read about it books

It's like no it we found a herd of unicorns out there And so we're hopefully

I'm gonna be paving the way for you to be on cultish to talk about hyperpreterism as well

So we're looking forward to that Dr. Frost is there any last words that you'd like to share?

No, I just pray the Holy Spirit uses you and pray the

Look, we encourage dialogue. I disagree on I mean I find things and stuff to do things with scriptures that I know that you know disagree or people but The fund of the

Apostles Creed, you know the fundamentals I mean surely the goodness in this world of disagreement and infighting and schism and dividing and finger -pointing and everything else and all the other and even among us as Churches and believers and others

We have the Apostles Creed that unite every all four quarters and that to me is a miracle

That's just a miracle one of them is We have to champion resurrection of the dead and can relate it to the fact that that's the cure to the world

That's that's that's the cure and we yeah you You can have good things and work hard and all of that kind of thing

And I take nothing away from any of those types of things But Joel Osteen is wrong when he's saying you can have your best life now

No Hmm this is not my best life now new heavens and new earth of that's my best life

Do you know the Johnny Mac quote about that? He said if you're living your best life now, then you're headed to hell

I Get what he's saying there because that that we've become so focused over here and we've lost this beautiful.

Hope Or spiritualized it away Where it's like oh, yeah,

I believe in that, you know saying it'll happen out there somewhere And that's not how

Paul preached resurrection at all to him it was It's this is everything you deny this but not even

Christ has been right the price I've been right there forget it I'm done Dr.

Ross. I'll see you later Thank you so much. I enjoyed We got a little out we did we did go over two hours

We're not as long as last time, but you you were just so awesome Talk to I learned so much and I hope we can continue to talk about more issues to come in the future

So Thank you so much Doesn't want to thank all of you also for tuning in and listening to our dialogue

Please know our hearts desire is to guard the gospel of grace And so we don't want to poison the well, we understand that a lot of full predators have differing views

So we do try to touch on the thing that unites full preterism together And that's namely that the second coming of Jesus already happened in the past at 7 a .d

and so our conviction is that compromises the gospel and we've been going into reasons why we think that a

Quote -unquote realized eschatology is really no blessed. Hope at all. And so if you disagree

Just continue to seek the Lord and his truth Pray that the Holy Spirit would guide you into all truth the way that he promised and I believe that he's done that for the past 2 ,000 years and so thank you so much for tuning in.