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 cretorism is still a cult. Hello and welcome to The Apologetic Dog, where it's our heart's 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 heart's desire is 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, TwelveFiveChurch .com, 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. 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 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. I'm 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 looked 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 well-meaning people within, perhaps, full preterism?

Well, it's a cult's one of those hard words to define, you know. Thinking back, my reading, Mac Webber, 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, and then you're identified with a particular movement that's regarded as outside the main stream, or the main focus or concept.

Yeah, 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, we're not using the word cult as a scare tactic. We're actually saying we 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 E 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 issue with cult here is that we're,.

If what you're dealing with are major fundamental tenets of the historic Christian faith, whether you're an Eastern Orthodox and all of its various branches, Ukrainian, Russian, and Greek, or a Roman Catholic and its various branches, or Protestant, Bible-believing, I'll say Bible-believing, Reformational, Protestant, Bible-believing, Evangelical, all of these have maintained these 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 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 torch that based upon this grand narrative of beginning, middle, and the end. 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 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... Same on you, by the way. Great list there.

I mean, you know, and of course I have the same list, basically, but the second item that I really want to touch on, and we'll probably hit 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 viewers, go listen to the full response from Michael Sullivan and Don Preston. Hey, 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 Don Preston, after our first video that you and I did, I posted that, of course, and then Don Preston got on there and posted exegetical essays on the Resurrection, which is a book I wrote.

That was published first in 2008 by Truth or Virgil Vaduva published it. 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 a full Preterist 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 Preterists believe. I was one of them. I taught alongside Don. We roomed together in hotel rooms. I've spoken at his Children's Preterist Weekend.

I spoke with Mack King, Tim King, Ed Stephens, all of them at over 20 conferences throughout the United States. So I'm not just representing their views. I know their views. I could read you right now if you wanted me to.

I lived it. I sold my house, sold my business, sold my family, started a church. That was a six-figure business, by the way, that I sold. 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 Misplaced Pope, which sold over 4 ,000 copies in 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 fathers got it wrong and these Gnostics might have got it a little bit of right. I said that in my book, Misplaced Pope.

So.

I've never stated in anywhere that I've written that full-fledged Plutarism is full-blown Gnosticism. I've said it's Gnostic-like. It 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-fledged Plutarism is very similar to Gnosticism, right? Just really paint that picture for our viewers. You know, it's major.

Tenet is that the resurrection is spiritual. It has nothing to do with the flesh whatsoever and that we've already obtained it. Once you're indwelled 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. We kind of, at the end, think Greek here. You've got to think Homer. You know, Iliad and Odyssey. You've 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 I know you're not saying, that Full Plutarism 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 clarified that, too, because I knew that such a claim. And I've got tons of Gnostic literature.

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 a response video to a 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, disagree, leave me a comment 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.

Tom Holland was at University of South Wales. He wrote a book on Paul's theology. And so, he focuses in on the corporate dimensions of Paul's use of the term body in his relationship to the church, calling the church the body of Christ.

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 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 who are in the flesh cannot 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.

Years ago, Sam 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 cannot be pleasing to God.

But it goes, it actually goes back to Romans 5 and 6, the body of man, the mortal body, the body of death, the body of flesh, and he uses them elsewhere in Colossians and Ephesians. And as you know, Tom Holland deals with these terms, 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?

No, this is what we do, and we did a lot of just what we call cherry-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's work.

But let's just read here what he says on Romans 8 and 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 change, as 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.

Paul speaks of their common experience as members one of another, as members of Christ. This split underlines that while we are seeking to show or 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 those last days. So he's very, very explicit there as to what he's stating. And then as far as what he means by that, he makes 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 -3 -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 a firm bodily resurrection as well.

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

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-fledged, and Mike's doing it right now.

So you mean Tom Holland wouldn't be on their side of this? No, not at all. Not at all.

They can contact you. Yeah. He used to be at University of South Wales. I don't know if he's at Edinburgh now. I'm not sure where he is. But that book on Romans, it's a two-volume set on Romans, wonderful commentary.

It 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 and quoting them?

Well, I did the same thing and why I left full-fledged in the book, where I can take John Preston, Mike Sullivan, Dave Green, and Ed Stephens. They're all full-fledged, right? And I can put them such together because they all disagree with each other on details, on many, many, many details.

I can throw some Max King in there, too. He's a full-fledged. 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.

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 days and new heavens and new earth.

All of them do. So when you have that kind of context in which they're arguing about details as to how that will come about, that it will come about, we all agree. How it comes about, pre-millennial, amillennial, pre-Ratcliffe.

Okay, we'll go through the details. And so all that Mike is throwing there is that eschatology is very complex, and there's a lot of people that disagree. Okay, we already knew that going into it.

Yeah, now you mentioned resurrection of the dead. That actually transitions to the next point I want to talk about. Last time you and I got together, we talked about hominids. Infallitus 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 preterists believe that the resurrection already happened at 7 AD. 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 treat them like hominids and Infallitus. He would say, you're, you're, you're teaching gangrene. You are 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 hominids and Infallitus agreed on the nature of the resurrection. Let me play this clip, Dr. Frost, and I'd love to get your thoughts on it.

You know, Sam some years ago tried to say, well, it's obvious that hominids and Infallitus 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 us proof, Dr. Frost? Anyway, one second. 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.

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 Infallitus 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 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, unleash.

There are several, there's a 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 at. Does he have the letter of Paul to Hymenaeus? Where did you get this information? Now, this is an interesting segue on the part that we did on Gnosticism.

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

Thousands and thousands of books. All that knowledge. Got about another thousand at the church.

So,.

Here's a randomly, just for pure 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. This is, this is Harper's Bible Commentary.

Great, great one-volume set.

Seminary, everything. You'll find it. Hold that up again. I'll make sure everybody's able to see it properly. Harper's Bible Commentary. And Ralph Martin,.

Don should know who Ralph Martin is. Second Timothy, talking about Hymenaeus. And what's, again, this was randomly picked out. I could have picked any one of them. But anyway, I picked this one up. So he writes, the writer exposes some kind of teaching regarding resurrection with the corollary that baptism or something along those lines it is.

He says, the best parallel verse in the newly discovered Gnostic treatise on resurrection from the Nag Hammadi library. As the Apostle said, we have suffered 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 Hymenaeus, the first Timothy 120, for his excommunication. The second century Acts of Paul, notice he goes right into the second century, Gnostic.

That's where he's going. I'm not the only one doing that, Don. Ralph Martin is. Ralph Martin dwarfs me as far as I'm concerned, really. Acts of Paul associates this teaching with Timoth and Hermodotus.

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 spiritualize. And it's for this reason that's implied in past already that Paul is taking such great umbrage at what Hymenaeus and Thaledus is saying. And I can't find a commentary anywhere that would support what Don is saying there.

It wasn't just a tiny issue.

Not even the NET Bible?

No, yeah.

Which we'll get into in a little bit.

The tiny issue is bound up in the nature issue, because obviously if it already happened, it's spiritual. Yeah. This is against Paul's teaching of bodily resurrection. Again, quoting Tom Holland or Tom Wright or Scott Hahn or Scott McKnight.

I could go down the list. All of them. 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 about if Paul and Hymenaeus and Phileas 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 that, I'd like to transition to Ecclesiastes 3.

To back up what that point that you're making is, which is an excellent point, is 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, can I do that?

Is that possible?

I don't think I can. No, but we know strategically they 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 Hominius and Philetus, 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.

Right, right. Nope, that's a good point.

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 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 NET, 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 text here.

I don't know where he's getting at. 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 in red. 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, 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 when you said, so you're telling me there's a chance.

Yeah, you're telling me there's a chance. So I think in another place, Michael was saying that I made the claim that I search every single.

Translation in the history of the existence. The German commentaries, especially. Yeah.

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 see every single one of them, 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 see it. And I wasn't even aware of it. And I'm so thankful Jeremiah, for you, for bringing that up.

When you showed me that footnote, my jaw dropped. I thought, oh, well, that's the end of that. So 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. The work that God has done from beginning unto the end. In other words, what has it begin? The work that God has done from beginning to end. What is it?

And I'm sorry to bring philosophy in, but you're an apologist, 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 them, pick one, does not discuss where we came from, why are we here, and where are we going.

Can you name one? Where we came from, the beginning. Where are we going? What's, in other words, purpose, teleology, tele, aim, goal, purpose. Well, to know where I'm going, I got to know where I came from.

And I didn't just drop out of the sky. I 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 what Solomon, the man of wisdom, is saying in his text.

That man has longed in his heart, put in his heart, to know 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.

Dr. Frost, 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 3 .11, because we're gonna be shifting in a little bit to 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's infinity, and it's not. He's made everything beautiful in its time. The context is clearly about a time to do this, a time to do that, a time to do this, and a time to do that.

Part of our problem 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.

It's not going to make that beautiful in its own season.

So,.

There's so many things that's 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.

In those years when I was really in that mode of thinking, I would read Ecclesiastes, and I would read these passages. What does that got to do with 70 AD? That was the whole backdrop of my whole mind, was what does this got to do with 70 AD?

How can I link this to 70 AD? Because if anything stepped outside of that boundary of 70 AD, then it's not fulfilled. We're still wrestling and struggling, and I can read anything in Ecclesiastes and say, yeah, that whoever wrote this book 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, and the time where they're gonna reach the end of their life.