Green and New Perspective on Paul
Filed Under (Sharon Nichols) by Sharon Nichols on 13-07-2012
Tagged Under : Authors-Dave Green-Hyperpreterist, Books-House Divided, Ethics-False Witness, Heresy-Defined, Hermeneutics-New Perspective, Theology-Soteriology
Print This Post
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.
I see Dave Green has not yet responded to this blog, which makes me wonder why.
Sharon
PS: To Dave Green: You are a liar. Repent. Cease and desist from your lies. Being deliberately “wrong” is a lie. Prove your accusations against Jason, Dee Dee and PaulT (and me) or stop the lies.
Num 15:30 But any who sin deliberately, whether they are natives or foreigners, are guilty of treating the LORD with contempt, and they shall be put to death, 31 because they have rejected what the LORD said and have deliberately broken one of his commands. They are responsible for their own death.
What’s this Dave; a link to your own lies? How is that proof?
As for the “professing believers” part:
Mat 7:20 Therefore by their fruits ye shall know them. 21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven. :22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by thy name, and by thy name cast out demons, and by thy name do many mighty works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
You, of all people, have quite the gall to talk about “public sin.” You, who continues to lie and sin in public every time you say “Talbotism”? Dave Green, you are a liar and a deceiver.
You live in lala land Dave. Dave Green, you are a liar and a deceiver.
Oh, so you “prove” your libelous ways by posting links to your own posts? LOL Dave Green, you are a liar and a deceiver.
Dave Green, you are a liar and a deceiver. What “ongoing” “podcasts” are you speaking of? What a bunch of hogwash Dave Green. You are a liar. “Apparently with his full approval”? LOL We aren’t “disciples” of Dr. Talbot so why would we be worried about his “full approval”? Dave, what a loaded thing to say.
There is no such thing as Dr. Talbot’s “disciples”. You are a liar and a deceiver. Prove it or be quiet.
Cute, but Dave Green, you are a liar and a deceiver.
Besides, how do you have any real idea what I think about any of this? Other than being your opponent in the war against hyper-preterism, you really don’t know anything about me so how would you know about my motives?
Interesting that you think that you know what matters to me or not. As your pal Dorothy once told me that I “appeared to be judging his [Mike Sullivan’s] motives”. Yet, here is Dave Green basing whole matters on assumed motives. Double standard? You bet! Is any of this “proof” of Dave Green’s accusations? Nope.
Really? The “only” thing Dave? Dave Green, you are a liar and a deceiver. You have NO way of knowing these things, yet you write as if you have personal knowledge of them. If you have PROOF, provide it. If NOT, shut up about it. If you DON’T have proof, then you are a LIAR and a DECEIVER.
Prove your accusations or cease and desist from making them. You have nothing but lame excuses to continue in your lies. Obviously you will believe what you want, but without solid, indisputable proof, you should not be promoting your lies against others on the internet (a public venue) without solid proof, which you do not have. You have been told repeatedly that you are wrong and you have repeatedly been asked for proof, which you have not provided, yet you continue to spread lies and deceptive information on your internet group. Cease and desist from your lies. You know it is wrong. All you have to do is stop and ask for forgiveness.
And don’t think you can continue your lies using the excuse that others have sinned against you. Whether someone has sinned against you or not; makes no difference. YOU have a responsibility for your own actions. What someone else does is their problem and doesn’t give you an excuse to continue in your evil lies. We are no longer in the “eye for an eye” era.
(Especially you, who believes we are now living in the New Heavens and New Earth in which righteousness dwells. Prove to all of us that you are truly righteous (fully redeemed and fully saved) and cease and desist from your lies.)
Repent Dave Green.
Hi Robin,
You wrote, “It doesn’t really matter whether Dr. Talbot edits, writes or merely advises Jason or Sam; what is significant is that he has made the ROC site an official
representative and support of Whitefield Media. And that is what makes him culpable for whatever they say and do.”
Not sure where you got your information Robin. I cannot find anywhere on the ROC site where it states it is an “official representative” of Whitfield Media. I see they have Whitfield Media and Whitfield Seminary listed under “resources”, but that is a far cry from ROC being under the authority of Dr. Talbot and/or Whitfield Media/Seminary.
From all appearances, ROC is an independent website, not under the authority of anyone but Jason and Sam.