Author: Samuel M. Frost, Th.D.

Samuel M. Frost has gained the recognition of his family, peers, colleagues, church members, and local community as a teacher and leader.  Samuel was raised in the Foursquare Gospel tradition and continued in the rising Charismatic Movement of the early 1980’s.  While serving in local congregations he was admitted to Liberty Christian College in Pensacola, Florida where he lived on campus for four years earning his Bachelor’s of Theology degree.  It was there under the tutelage of Dr. Dow Robinson (Summer Institutes of Linguistics), and Dr. Frank Longino (Dallas Theological Seminary) that he was motivated to pursue a career in Theology.  Dr. Robinson wrote two books on Linguistics, Workbook on Phonological Analysis (SIL, 1970) and Manuel for Bilingual Dictionaries: Textbook (SIL, 1969).  It was under these teachers’ guidance that Frost entered into his Master’s studies, being granted a scholarship for Greek I and II at Pentecostal Theological Seminary, accredited, in Cleveland, Tennessee (adjunct of Lee University).  Frost completed his study under Dr. French Arrington (The Ministry of Reconciliation, Baker Books, 1980), who used the text of J. Gresham Machen, New Testament Greek for Beginners. Frost studied Hebrew for two years under Dr. Mark Futato (author, Beginning Biblical Hebrew, Eisenbrauns, 2003) and Dr. Bruce K. Waltke (author, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, Eisenbrauns, 1990) at Reformed Theological Seminary, Orlando, Florida. With combined credits from PTS and RTS, Samuel completed his Master of Arts in Christian Studies and Master of Arts in Religion from Whitefield Theological Seminary in Lakeland, Florida under the direct tutelage of Dr. Kenneth G. Talbot, co-author of the well reviewed work, Hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism (Whitefield Media, 2005) with Dr. Gary Crampton (and Foreword by the late, Dr. D. James Kennedy).  Dr. Talbot also oversaw Samuel’s Dissertation, From the First Adam to the Second and Last Adam (2012) earning him the Magister Theologiae (Th.M.) degree.  He also helped put together A Student’s Hebrew Primer for WTS, designed and graded exams for their Hebrew Languages course. Samuel’s studies lead him into an issue in the field of Eschatology where his scholarship and unique approach in Hermeneutics garnered him recognition.  Because of the controversial nature of some of his conclusions, scholars were sharp in their disagreement with him.  Frost’s initial work, Misplaced Hope: The Origins of First and Second Century Eschatology (2002, Second Edition, 2006 Bi-Millennial Publishing), sold over four thousand units.  While arguing for the Reformation understanding of sola Scriptura as defined by the Westminster Confession of Faith, Frost’s book launched a heavily footnoted argument for a total reassessment of the doctrine known as the Second Coming of Christ.  The conclusion was that the events of the war of the Jewish nation against their Roman overlords in 66-70 C.E. formed the New Testament authors’ eschatological outlook, and went no further than their own first century generation; a view otherwise known as “full” or "hyper" Preterism.  Internationally recognized Evangelical author and speaker, Steve Wohlberg remarked, ‘On the “preterist” side today…we have such influential leaders as Gary DeMar, Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., David Chilton, R.C. Sproul, Max King, James Stuart Russell, Samuel M. Frost, and John Noe.  To these scholars…the beast is not on the horizon, he’s dead” (Italics, his)” (End Time Delusions, Destiny Image Publishers, 2004, page 133).  It should be noted that only Noe, King and Frost supported the “full” Preterist position. Thomas Ice and co-author of the best selling Left Behind series, Tim LaHaye, quote Frost’s work, Misplaced Hope, as well in their book, The End Times Controversy: The Second Coming under Attack (Harvest House Publishers, 2003, page 40).  Dr. Jay E. Adams, who single handedly launched “a revolution” in Christian Counseling with his work, Competent to Counsel: An Introduction to Nouthetic Counseling, (1970, Zondervan), also wrote an analysis of Frost’s work in Preterism: Orthodox or Unorthodox? (Ministry Monographs for Modern Times, INS Publishing, 2004).  Adams wrote of Misplaced Hope as a "useful, scholarly work" (p.6 - though he disagreed with the overall thesis).  Dr. Charles E. Hill, Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at Reformed Theological Seminary, Orlando, wrote of Misplaced Hope that Frost, “attacks the problem of the early church in a much more thoroughgoing way than I have seen” (When Shall These Things Be? A Reformed Response to Hyper Preterism, Ed. Keith Mathison, Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, 2003, ‘Eschatology in the Wake of Jerusalem’s Fall’ p. 110-ff.).  There were several other works as well that took the scholarship of Frost seriously, like Ergun Caner in The Return of Christ: A Premillennial Perspective, Eds., Steve W. Lemke and David L. Allen (B&H Publishing, 2011). Because of the controversial nature of Frost’s conclusions on these matters, it was difficult to find a denomination within the Church-at-Large to work in terms of pastoral ministry.  That situation changed when Samuel was called by a Bible study group in Saint Petersburg, Florida to found a congregation.  Christ Covenant Church was established in 2002 operating under the principles outlined by Presbyterian historian James Bannerman’s work, The Church of Christ: A Treatise on the Nature, Powers, Ordinances, Discipline, and Government of the Christian Church (Banner of Truth Trust, 1974, original, 1869).  By-Laws and a Constitution were drawn up in the strictest manner for what was considered an “Independent” establishment of an independent Presbyterian Church, granted that a “call” was received and recognized by Presiding Elders duly ordained from existing and recognized denominations.  Two Elders, one ordained in the Reformed Presbyterian Church (Mike Delores), and another ordained in the Presbyterian Church of America (Dr. Kelly N. Birks, now deceased) tested and reviewed the call, ordaining Samuel on October 20th, 2002, the Twenty Second Sunday after Trinity.  Proper forms were submitted to Tallahassee, Florida with the stamp of a Notary Public Witness.  Christ Covenant Church (CCC) functioned as a local church for five years with a congregation as large as 30 members.  Frost was gaining recognition after Misplaced Hope had been published in January of that year, and conferences were hosted that included debates with another prominent "full" Preterist educator, Don K. Preston.  CCC hosted best-selling authors, Thomas Ice, and Mark Hitchcock from Dallas Theological Seminary; and Dr. James B. Jordan (Westminster Theological Seminary), well-known author/pastor in Reformed theological circles.  Frost was invited for the next several years to speak at over 25 conferences nation-wide, was featured in articles and an appearance on local news in Tampa for one of CCC’s conferences.  The Evangelical Theological Society also invited Samuel to speak at the Philadelphia conference (Frost is currently a Member of ETS as well as Society of Biblical Literature, SBL). During this time Samuel had submitted one more book, Exegetical Essays on the Resurrection of the Dead (TruthVoice, 2008; repr. JaDon Publishing, 2010); and co-wrote, House Divided: A Reformed Response to When Shall These Things Be? (Vision International, 2010).  Frost also wrote several Forewords for up and coming authors who were influenced by his teaching materials, as well as sited many times in books, lectures and academic papers (Essays is sited in Worship and the Risen Jesus in the Pauline Letters, Tony Costa, Studies in Biblical Literature, Volume 157, 2013 Monographs XV, Peter Lang: New York; "Unsound and Informally Fallacious Preterist Arguments for Mark 13:24-27." Elton L. Hollon, The Heythrop Journal, Volume 64, Issue 5, Sept. 2023).  However, because of certain aspects of Hermeneutics and Frost’s undaunted commitment to scholarship (with always a strong emphasis on the personal nature of devotional living to Christ), several challenges to the "hyper" Preterist view he espoused finally gave way, largely due to the unwavering commitment to Samuel by the Dean of Whitefield Theological Seminary, Dr. Kenneth G. Talbot, who continually challenged him.  In what shocked the "hyper" Preterist world, Samuel announced after the Winter of 2010 that he was in serious error, and departed the movement as a whole. The documentation of Frost’s departure was published by American Vision’s Founder, Gary DeMar, with a Foreword by Dr. Kenneth L. Gentry.  Why I Left Full Preterism (AV Publishing, 2012) quickly ran through its first run.  The book was later republished under the arm of Dr. Kenneth L. Gentry (GoodBirth Ministries Publishing, 2019).  Dr. Gentry also gave mention to Frost in his book, Have We Missed the Second Coming: A Critique of Hyper Preterism (Victorious Hope Publishing, 2016), noting him as "one of the most prominent" teachers within Full Preterism (135).  Dr. Keith Mathison, Professor of Systematic Theology at Reformation Bible College in Sanford, Florida, endorsed the book as well.  Samuel has gone on to write, Daniel: Unplugged (McGahan Publishing House, 2021); The Parousia of the Son of Man (Lulu Publishing, 2019); God: As Bill Wilson Understood Him: A Theological Analysis of Alcoholics Anonymous (Lulu Publishing, 2017).  He is also active as a certified Chaplain with the Henry County Sheriff’s Department, Indiana, and enrolled with ICAADA (Indiana Counselor’s Association on Alcohol and Drug Abuse), and worked directly under Dr. Dennis Greene, Founder of Christian Counseling and Addictions Services, Inc., for a year.  Frost’s passion is in the education of the local church on various issues and occasionally worked with Pastor Alan McCraine with the First Presbyterian Church in Lewisville Indiana (and at Knightstown Bethel Presbyterian - where he currently is a Member, and is a Commissioned Ruling Elder in the PCUSA), where he periodically was called upon to give the sermon. Samuel, with his wife, Kimberly, helped to establish Heaven’s Bread Basket food pantry that donates food items to local families in need once a month – a ministry of the Session of First Presbyterian Church (Lewisville).  Frost has recently earned his doctorate in Theology (Th.D.) after two years with Christian Life School of Theology Global (CLSTG, Georgia).  Currently, he is an Instructor for the Southern Region LIFE Bible College, Papua New Guinea, and recently was co-published with Elton Hollon for Bibliotheca Sacra (April-June 2023; Volume 180, Number 718; 202-227).  He has a solid, family reputation in the community, and has performed local marriages and funerals.  He also sits on the Board of the Historical Preservation Commission in New Castle, and Hagar's Hope, a women's transition house.  Frost is employed as Instructor for the Henry County Health Department (Jail Recovery Assistance Program), teaching Cognitive Behavioral Therapy.

Response to Rick Cassidy on Romans 8.19-ff

By Samuel M. Frost, Th. M.

One of the more problematic passages for the Full Preterist (FP) is Romans 8.19-ff.  The FP is under extreme stress to interpret this passage in light of their propositions that every shred of prophecy in the Christian Bible was fulfilled in 70 A.D., culminating in that horrible razing of the Herodian Temple in Jerusalem by the Roman military and its alliances.  Although many passages in Scripture do speak directly to that event, not all of them do, and this one is one of them that doesn’t.

The passage in view is this: “For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. 23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience” (English Standard Version, ESV).

Based on a plain reading of the text, it appears to say what so many millions in the past and present have said: creation was subjected to a corruption by God with the purpose of bringing it into an even greater realization which will never again be subjected to corruption.  That the people of God groan until this realization, the transformation of their bodies (resurrection of the dead), and that until such manifestation, they hope in what is not yet seen, but one day will be seen.

Pretty straightforward. Not so fast, says the FP.  This “utopian” dream (as it is caricatured to mean) is a myth.  The Bible never speaks about anything like this at all.  It was invented and read into the Bible by false men and women with false, vain, fleshly hopes.  Christianity and the foundations upon which was (and is) being built is false (a totally false hope).  This passage was entirely fulfilled in 70 A.D.

So, how do they get there?  How do they come up with such an extravagant claim that until recently no one ever announced?  Well, it’s not easy.  But, first, it has to do with the word, “creation” in the text.  In fact, “the creation”, “the whole creation”, “firstfruits”, “redemption of the body”, and “we/us”.  These terms have to be defined in such a way that is not normally understood.

The first line that an example of this type of argument (and I pick on Rick Cassidy, a FP) is that there is something fishy going on here.  How can “the creation” itself “eagerly expect” something?  That is, how can “rocks, trees, birds and worms” expect something?  Sounds absurd, right?  Well, no.  In the Psalms, creation itself actively “reveals” the Glory of God (Romans 1.20,25).  And, Cassidy points to these two verses.  He takes 1.20 to mean “creation” itself, and 1.25 to mean “birds, beasts, and men” – created things; creation.  Same word.  The Greek word simply means, “creation, what is created, created order, creature (of living beings); act of creation” (UBS 4th Ed, Greek NT).  Thus, man is “creation” or a “creature.”  So is a mountain.  So is a bird.  In the Scripture, creation is not some lifeless thing.  It is personified numerous times poetically so.  Trees clap their hands.  Stars sing.  Cows worship.  All of creation is sustained by, held together through, and brings glory to God.  It’s not pantheism, or even panentheism.  But, it is living in the sense that God sustains it by “the kol” – the Voice – Hebrew).  His voice moves all things, holds all things, superintends all things.  And, creation itself does reveal the Glory of God, and would so loudly and clearly to all – if it were not for one problem: Sin and Death, which has so marred the message of creation that even the Sun, Moon and Stars cannot convey their message so naturally infused in their being that God alone is God of all.  Man has fallen.  His sense of right and wrong have become seriously damaged.

Cassidy writes, however, “That is the usage by Paul in Romans 8…nothing more. We must always put ourselves into the language , culture , and time period of the writer and not impose common English word definitions that immediate (sic) strike our mind.”  In other words, since Paul calls a convert a “new creation”, then new converts are called “creatures” or “creation” and, thus, other created things (creatures like birds, trees, and lions) cannot at all be understood here.  Not good logic, for, as Cassidy has already noted, “creation” is understood in 1.20.  Paul knows what it means, and what it can mean.  He is not restricted to just one meaning, in other words.

Now, it is an interesting bit of language theory here.  Cassidy is against “imposing” on the text anything foreign.  And, that’s to be admired.  If he is guilty of such, then shame on him for breaking his own rule.  But, is there something necessarily wrong with first impressions?  If I see a word and think immediately of its meaning, then commonality in that expression has occurred (I am not even going to begin on Augustine or Malebranche and de Magistro at this point).  Did the sun have a different “impression” 2000 years ago?  Was it not that big yellow ball up there?  Were human brains wired differently?  I digress.  The point Cassidy wishes to set up at this point is plain: how millions upon millions of Christians, scholars and non-scholars alike have in the past and present understood this passage is based not upon Paul’s “time” and “culture”, but upon what immediately strikes their minds.  And, sense we should not always rely on this fashion of defining terms, we are warranted to dive deeper into the text to discover what hardly anyone has ever discovered.  And, always keep this in mind: we must dig deeper here to find another meaning than that which is ordinary because this passage MUST be interpreted to fit in with Full Preterism.  Sure, we all do this with the Bible.  The question is, how far, how deep and how much?  If one comes out with an almost entirely if not opposite meaning from what so many others have commonly seen together from all walks of life past and present, then it makes ones attempt at least highly suspect.  I mean, one can say, “everyone thinks Adam ate an apple, when the Bible does not say that” – and this can be easily shown, and we all have a chuckle (a keen logician would state, however, that it could have been an apple – we are not told either way)!  But, to come up with Adam was never a real person, never ate anything, and no fall ever occurred, well, that’s a stretch.

Nonetheless, there is enough there in this text to ask questions.  For Cassidy, “creation” or as some translations have it, “creature” can be spoken of man, a creature.  Reasonable enough.  Thus, “the creature” is eagerly expecting the manifestation of the sons of God.  Man is expecting this.

Even further, Cassidy argues that it the new creation (Christians) that is “the creature” in 8.19.  But, does this make sense?   The new creation (Christian) is eagerly awaiting the manifestation of the sons of God (the new creation – Christians)?  Well, he sort of changes his meaning.  The creature is “referring to humans destined to be children of God.”  But, in the verse he cites (II Corinthians 5.17) Paul already calls Christians, “new creations” and “sons of God”.  They were not awaiting to be called sons of God, they already were.  What the sons of God (or to be more gender-inclusive, children of God) were awaiting was the redemption of their bodies.  The fact that they were awaiting meant that they had already had a hope for it, which qualifies them as sons of God.  They were not sons-of-God-in-waiting, but waiting-sons-of-God.  Huge difference.

Thus, the creation itself is waiting for the sons of God to be manifested in terms of resurrection/redemption of their bodies: resurrection of the dead.  It wouldn’t make any sense any other way around.

Now, ever allowed to present his case, Cassidy thinks there is another reason in the text for suggesting something fishy.  Paul wrote, “the whole creation” which may mean something different from “the creation” (or may not, logically speaking).  “I saw the game.”  “Really?”  “Yes! The whole game!”  Here, “the game” and “the whole game” are the same.  One has an adjective, the other doesn’t.  No big deal.  Thus, it appears that based on the “the whole creation” and the phrase, “together with” implies two subjects here: the sons of God, and the creation – the whole creation “itself”.  That is, the whole creation itself will participate in the manifestation of the sons of God, when the Spirit quickens even the mortal bodies that quickened the mortal body of Jesus in the tomb (8.11).  When the sons of God are “glorified” (8.17) with Jesus (who is already glorified), after they have suffered with him.  Suffering comes before glorification.  Suffering with Jesus is something the FP doesn’t want to talk about much.  It ruins their eschatology.

Cassidy’s more candid words now take on a bolder charge, thinking thus far he has made his case indubitably: “So…specifically…in context…Paul means… the whole saved human creation. There is no reason to think Paul is injecting a completely different subject with that one sentence (v22)…the restoration of the physical universal creation of Genesis. The KJV translators with a restored creation bias decided to use the words “the whole creation” instead of the equally accurate “every creature” and that impression has permeated all English readers. However that is not what Paul is discussing.”  So, in 1611, at least, the bias KJV Greek scholars were so blind to Cassidy’s thinking (and Paul’s) that they completely, practically, rewrote the text.  What this means is this: in order for Cassidy’s FP to work, you must think that this is, in fact, the case!  Which, more or less, shows my point above.  This kind of charge does not help an argument….it weakens it.  However, why can’t Paul “introduce” a new subject matter wherever he wants?  Is there some rule against that?  I mean, how far away is “creature” from “creation” when it has already been attested by Cassidy that it can mean in other places, “creation”?  The fact that Paul introduces it is due to the fact that “the creation itself” (an emphatic form in Greek) was marred by the sin of Adam and mankind in Adam.  Here is some “Hebrew mind” for you: in Noah’s day God was not upset just about mankind, but by the LAND itself – IT itself had “become corrupt” (Genesis 6.11).  Same word used here in our text (see Septuagint).  The whole creation (typical in Second Temple Judaism) will come into the glorious renovation of the Sons of God.

Yet, there is one more point Cassidy thinks he has: Paul says, “And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies” (ESV).  Does this not prove that Paul does not have in mind the creation, but created people, and that he is contrasting them with us/we in his own day?  The created people, the whole creation, every creature (in Cassidy’s view, the Gentiles), are contrasted with The Jews who are in Christ.  How does he get this?  The word “firstfruits”.  I’ll let him speak to this point in his own words: “Verse 23 represents the strongest argument that the passage is referring to the Gentiles and not the non-rational creation. The first part “Not only so” is a reference to the suffering of those mentioned in verse 22. The verse contrasts those mentioned in verse 22 to “we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit.” This might seem to be some obscure, unknown reference, but its meaning is quite clear from the rest of scripture.

“In Israel, the first fruits were to be the first and best of a crop given as a sacrifice to God. In reference to the New Testament, the first fruits of Christ were the Jews who first believed and followed Jesus. Jesus made it clear that He was sent only to witness to the Jews: But He [Jesus] answered and said, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

There are a few things wrong here.  Paul is not writing to Jews only.  Paul was an Apostle to the Gentiles.  There is no indication here at all that he is singling out “we” as “Jews only”.  Although in other places, James, for example, calls his Jewish audience a “kind of firstfuits”, that does not mean Paul is using it in the same manner here.  Secondly, and more plain, it is the “firstfruits of the Spirit.”  This phrase is not at all talking about people who are called, “firstfruits”!  It is, rather, those who have the Spirit’s firstfuits, the guarantee, the adoption of sons, “For the Spirit himself giveth testimony to our spirit that we are the sons of God” (8.16).  The firstfuits of the Spirit is the “testimony” that we are sons of God.  “If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you” (8.11).  Two things here: the Spirit now “dwells” in the believer (the firstfruits of the Spirit), and will quicken the mortal bodies of believers (the harvest of the Spirit).  From the first workings of the Spirit in the believer, we are being conformed to the image of the Son, through suffering and mortification of the desires of sin, resistance, patient enduring unto the quickening even of the body, glorification.  From first to last, the Spirit of Jesus is at work, proclaiming liberty, setting us free, and, ultimately, bringing us into glory and honor at its highest peak, higher than even Adam in his pristine day.

In short, Cassidy’s argument here (even in spite of quoting Gill and Clarke, who would never come to Cassidy’s conclusions) falls short of proof.  Paul is arguing for the redemption of the body, the quickening of the mortal body, having the firstfruits of the Spirit.  That creation, the whole creation (man included, not just the Jewish peoples, but all peoples – all of creation itself) “together with” those who have the Spirit’s firstfruits dwelling in them are awaiting a glorious manifestation, a momentous event of all events in which Jesus is the Goal, and in which all things, things in heaven, things on earth and under the earth shall be headed up in Him, reconciling all things to him, where every knee will bow, all of creation shall bow, and everything will be made new, where moth and rust no longer corrupt, where Death and Sin no longer exist, where all nations will have One King, One Lord and One God, on earth as it is in heaven, thy Kingdom Come, where all kingdoms shall perish, and his alone shall stand.  Maranatha Lord Savior! I eagerly desire You!  Even now!