Filed Under (Sharon Nichols) by Sharon Nichols on 13-07-2012
Dave Green was being ridiculously sarcastic in his exaggerated comments when he wrote:
”"Christ died for our sins” (1 Cor. 15:3). That statement doesn’t refer to the actual death of Christ. It refers to the BIRTH of Christ AND a TYPE of the death of Christ (AD 30). The actual, true death of Christ for our sins will take place in the end of world history (AD 1,000,000 or whenever). That’s when Christ will really and actually and truly and once-and-for-all die for our sins.”http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PretCosmos/message/31944
He knows full well this example is nonsense, but that doesn’t stop him from doing whatever he can to try to make fun of his opponents. But what it DOES show us is HIS misguided view of salvation. Who would dream of saying anything like this except a hyper-preterist? Why do I write that? Because their view is that the cross wasn’t sufficient for spiritual salvation and until Jesus Christ came back in AD70 our “spiritual salvation” wasn’t complete? I can’t think of any orthodox Christian who would even dream of saying anything like this. Every orthodox Christian fully understands it was the work of Jesus Christ on the cross which secures our salvation.
Oh, I know Dave Green was trying to make fun of an orthodox view of types and shadows, but ultimately all he does is expose his own misguided view, which is akin to the New Perspectives on Paul. He proves this in his own writings in his book “House Divided” (page 46).
The current controversy in Reformed churches over “the new perspective on Paul” represents a return to the Augustinian, medieval, Catholic view that justification is progressive. Reformed futurists are having difficulty decisively answering the “progressive justification” argument of the “new perspective.” This is because (full) preterism is the only answer. If the Parousia did not take place when the temple fell in AD70, as Scripture teaches, then the “new perspective” is correct when it says that justification has not yet been consummated. If the Parousia has not yet happened, then the eschatological process of justification is still ongoing: “Now not for [Abrahams] sake only was it written, that [faith] was reckoned to him, but for our sake also, to whom [faith] is about to be reckoned [as righteousness, in the Parousia].” (Rom. 4:233-24a). The Reformed doctrine of non-progressive and full “justification by faith alone” at the point of conversion is true only if the eschatological process of “corporate justification” has already been consummated. It was consummated in AD70. In formulating “sola fide,” the Reformers were unknowingly conforming their soteriology to their preterist presuppositions. Full preterism and the Reformed doctrine of justification cannot long exist without each other.”[ bold mine –sn]
You see what he has done here. On the one hand, Green is trying to fit into the orthodox position which DISPUTES the “New Perspective on Paul” view. Yet (slyly), in his footnote, he is saying the “New Perspective on Paul” is the CORRECT view. ONLY if one accepts (full) hyper-preterism, then the Christian is saved at the point of conversion. What this means is, that hyper-preterist believe that justification WAS progressive during the period from the cross to AD70 (which would correspond to the orthodox ‘now’). IOW, for the hyper-preterist, only AFTER AD70, justification by faith alone is a reality. This is NOT Reformed theology, so for any of Dave Green and his hyper-preterist friends to claim they are “Reformed” is a misnomer.
So while Dave Green, in one breath, has decried the “New Perspective of Paul” view, in his next breath he has embraced the same view – at least for the period between the cross and AD70.