29th Mar 2017

Sam Frost and Howard Denham on Martyr Vindication #4

Be sure to read the previous three installments in this series, in which I respond to comments made on FaceBook by Sam Frost and Howard Denham. #1   #2   #3

Back to Mr. Frost.
Take note that Revelation 11 is patently about the fulfillment of Daniel 12, that predicted the resurrection, i.e. the judgment of the dead, at the end of the age, the rewarding of the prophets, when the power of the holy people would be completely shattered. Virtually every element of Daniel 12 is in Revelation 11.

The resurrection of Revelation 11– the time of the vindication of the martyrs and rewarding of the prophets– would be in fulfillment of Daniel 12.

The resurrection of Revelation 11 is the resurrection of Revelation 20- the “final” resurrection.

But, the resurrection of Daniel 12 would be when the power of the holy people was completely shattered. (Agreeing perfectly with Revelation 11:8f and the destruction / judgment of the city where the Lord was slain).

Therefore, the resurrection of Revelation 11 and the resurrection of Revelation 20- the “final” resurrection occurred at the time of the destruction of the power of the holy people, i.e. the time of the judgment and destruction of the city where the Lord was slain.

Now, since Revelation 20 is the resurrection of Revelation 11 and Daniel 12,


since the martyrs and the prophets are (were) vindicated at that judgment of the city where the Lord was slain, (Agreeing perfectly with Matthew 23!- which Frost / Denham ignore),


It must be the case that the final “day of the Lord” (proclaimed by inspired, authoritative prophets (performing miracles), vindication of the martyrs and rewarding of the prophets was at the time of the judgment and destruction of the city where the Lord was slain.

What does this mean? It means that Mr. Frost and Mr. Denham’s quibble about: “Well, what about the martyrs since that judgment?” actually becomes their problem– not mine, BECAUSE REVELATION HAS THE PROPHETS AND MARTYRS VINDICATED AT THE “FINAL DAY OF THE LORD” JUDGMENT / RESURRECTION TAKING PLACE AT THE JUDGMENT OF BABYLON! (Caps for emphasis only).

Since Mr. Frost says Babylon was Old Covenant Jerusalem, this means that the “final Day of the Lord resurrection” for the vindication of the martyrs was in AD 70.

Since Mr. Denham says Babylon was Rome, this means that the “final Day of the Lord resurrection” for the vindication of the martyrs was in AD 476.

Frost and Denham are the ones that have to show that Revelation does not posit the “final resurrection” at the fall of Babylon- the city where the Lord was slain! They can’t do it.

So, again, the problem here is not mine. It is Frost’s and Denham’s. I will have more to say about the issues just above as I continue. For now, it is sufficient to see that the claims of Frost and Denham are actually self-defeating, and un-Biblical.

After posting this, I discovered another post that Frost had made in the FB page of Travis Finley. Frost did not tag me, so he evidently did not want me to participate in that discussion. Since it is relevant to this entire issue of eschatology, I am including it here.

Frost posted that the preterist argument is the following… “All prophecy (a) is to be fulfilled (b) for all OT promises © to be fulfilled (b). All prophecy is fulfilled, therefore, all OT promises are fulfilled. Strict logic. It is logical (subalterns) to deduce from All prophecy is to be fulfilled, that some prophecy is fulfilled (A->I, symbolically speaking). There must be an added cutoff time (in this case, the terminus).

What FP’s do is equate terms like, “law”, “prophecy”, “promises” and “old covenant” which cannot be done. I.e., since the old covenant has been dissolved, then the promises made to those under the old covenant must equally be fulfilled, or God failed. Following this line of reasoning, if the old covenant has been dissolved, then the prophecies made to those under the old covenant must be equally fulfilled, or God failed. If the old covenant has dissolved, then the Law has been fulfilled and ended. By tying into the abolition of the old covenant, they strong-lock with that the fulfillment of the promises, Law, and prophecies made during the old covenant. But, this is to completely ignore the covenantal aspects of continuity and discontinuity.

For example, Adam and Eve are directly promised to produce a child that will crush the head of the serpent. That remains unfulfilled in their lifetime, and God “cuts” another covenant with Noah. The promises made to Eve and Adam are not dropped, but “continue”. What is dropped (discontinuity) are meat stipulations. None of these covenants mention circumcision (which is added under Abraham) and the promise of a seed who bruises the head remains. Why, then, is it assumed that with the New Covenant, all the promises made under the Old Covenant must be fulfilled when it was dissolved, or else, so they charge, God has failed?

Did God fail Eve? Did he fail Abraham, who never inherited the land he was promised directly by God himself?

And what about Moses? Moses didn’t even step foot into the land that he was promised. It is here that the FP misses the mark tremendously. Yes, Some prophecies were fulfilled, but this does not imply that all prophecy is fulfilled (some a is b cannot imply all a is b).

The only way, logically, they can do such reasoning is to define promises and prophecies in the same manner. All prophecies are fulfilled, All promises are prophecies, therefore, all promises are fulfilled (ab, ca, cb, the syllogism AAA). It’s the only way to do it. It’s wrong, but it’s the only way they can do it (that is, assume that prophecy and promise are the same and also assume no continuity at all between the abolition of the old covenant and “some” continuity from the old with the new.

They just don’t get covenant theology. And, if they bring up, “new patches must be put on new wineskins” (for them meaning, NO continuity) they miss the point: a patch is being added. A new patch is added onto a new wineskin so that it can stretch with it. It’s still a patch.” (EOQ)

To this, I posted a reply on 3-6-17

Sam offers what sounds like a really strong logical argument, with all the attendant symbols of logic. Sounds great! Sounds convincing, right? That is, until you realize that Mr. Frost is guilty of violating the Law of Excluded Middle. You have heard of that, right, Mr. Frost?

You make the totally false claim, upon which your argument is based, that: <What FP’s do is equate terms like, “law”, “prophecy”, “promises” and “old covenant” which cannot be done. I.e., since the old covenant has been dissolved, then the promises made to those under the old covenant must equally be fulfilled, or God failed.>

Preterist do affirm that “the law,” “the prophets,” “promises and the Old Covenant are the same. What is false about this claim is your denial of this.

In scripture, the prophetic books are called “the law”– see 1 Corinthians 14:20 where Paul quotes from Isaiah and calls it “the law.” Thus, your dichotomization is false.

In Scripture, the Psalms are called “the law”– just see Romans 3:11ff. Thus, your dichotomization– and your argument– is false.

In Scripture, the ten commandments were called “the covenant”– thus, “the law” and “the covenant” are in fact the same thing. What God has joined, let not man put asunder: Deuteronomy 4:13: “So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone.” So, the ten commandments, written on the stones, was “the covenant.” Now, Mr. Frost, once God has called “the law,” “the covenant”– then you are completely out of bounds to say that they are not the same.

“The law” of Israel’s festivals foretold– i.e. they promised- the resurrection. Those festal laws, were an inherent part of the covenant. Therefore, until God’s covenant with Israel, inclusive of the typological Sabbath mandates (all of them) was fulfilled, which would be at the coming of Christ to remove their sin (Romans 11:25f).

Look closer at Romans 11. Paul quotes directly from Isaiah and the promise of the taking away of Israel sin, IN FULFILLMENT OF GOD’S COVENANT with Israel after the flesh! Thus, Paul called Isaiah part of God’s covenant! And that covenant was a promise and prophecy. Once again, your premise and your argument is false. Bad logic, based on false premises abounds.

Your entire argument therefore fails, and when Jesus said that not one jot or one tittle of the law could pass until it was all fulfilled, this remains a valid way of saying that until all promises, all prophecies (part of the covenant) – and all inherent elements of “the law” had to be fulfilled for any of it to pass.

Your lamentable new doctrine has the Sabbath festivals– a fundamental and intrinsic element of “the covenant” and “the law” passing away without ever being fulfilled.

BTW, you query: “Did he fail Abraham, who never inherited the land he was promised directly by God himself?” Your claim is nothing but Dispensationalism, and you know it!

You, as the Dispensationalists do, fail to understand that Abraham was never to receive it personally, but representatively through his descendants: (I proved this in my debate with Joel and he never offered any response). But, let’s allow YHVH to comment on what He meant by His promise of the land to Abraham:

“Then Moses went up from the plains of Moab to Mount Nebo, to the top of Pisgah, which is across from Jericho. And the Lord showed him all the land of Gilead as far as Dan, all Naphtali and the land of Ephraim and Manasseh, all the land of Judah as far as the Western Sea, the South, and the plain of the Valley of Jericho, the city of palm trees, as far as Zoar. Then the Lord said to him, “This is the land of which I swore to give Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, saying, ‘I will give it to your descendants.” (Deuteronomy 34:1-4).

YHVH Himself interpreted the Abrahamic land promise as a promise that Abraham would receive representatively through his descendants.

And, what was the Jewish / Hebraic idea of whether Abraham received the land? Did they agree with Mr. Frost and the Dispensationalists that Abraham never received the land? Hmm, it would be good to read the Bible:

“Son of man, they who inhabit those ruins in the land of Israel are saying, ‘Abraham was only one, and he inherited the land. But we are many; the land has been given to us as a possession.”
(Ezekiel 33:24f).” (EOQ).

As of this writing, to my knowledge, the only response offered has been that Mr. Frost rejected the inspired testimony of Ezekiel by calling the Jews who made the comment about Abraham inheriting the land “unbelievers.” To say that this is disingenuous is an understatement! Are unbelievers incapable of speaking some truth? Is everything they say wrong? The facts are indisputable: from the Jewish perspective, from the perspective of the inspired writers, God kept His promises to Abraham concerning the land.

For more on the land promises, see my DVD series Israel and the Land: Fulfilled or Future? That study is available from me here.

Leave a Reply